Monday, November 06, 2006
on Luxury & Pragmatism. & Hitler.
Hey, all.
I share Hassen's reluctance to post politics on this blog. I'm also not really spoiling for an argument.
Since Hassen did speak up, though, I feel disingenuous leaving her alone out here, especially when I agree with her thoughts that there is too much at stake with this election to gamble on such a large scale, “voting for candidates that have no chance of winning.”
As a pro-choice feminist who plans on voting for Casey, I’m mildly offended by the implication that I therefore don’t care about women (or stopping the war) -- & I'd like to point out that there is a difference between apathy and pragmatism.
& while we're being pragmatic: let's take a moment and recognize that either Santorum or Casey is going to win this election.
Beyond unseating Santorum, electing Casey could help Dems take back the Senate.
Therefore, while I increase my annual donation to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, I’m voting for the guy who’s anti-abortion, but who does support: emergency contraception, increased access to family planning, same-sex civil union, adoption for same-sex couples, increased funding for public schools, early childhood education, and tuition assistance, and raising the minimum wage to $7.25/hr.
Santorum loves a good Hitler metaphor... so I'm looking at it like this:
If you have the chance to vote against Hitler, and your choices are an imperfect major party candidate who has a strong chance of winning, or a political ideal who has no chance of winning & could conceivably weaken the chances of the imperfect guy -- who do you choose?
As Hassen succinctly stated: “Attempting to create an ideal democracy at this point in the game is a luxury we don’t have in this country.”
peace, love, & voter registration,
jenn mcc.
I share Hassen's reluctance to post politics on this blog. I'm also not really spoiling for an argument.
Since Hassen did speak up, though, I feel disingenuous leaving her alone out here, especially when I agree with her thoughts that there is too much at stake with this election to gamble on such a large scale, “voting for candidates that have no chance of winning.”
As a pro-choice feminist who plans on voting for Casey, I’m mildly offended by the implication that I therefore don’t care about women (or stopping the war) -- & I'd like to point out that there is a difference between apathy and pragmatism.
& while we're being pragmatic: let's take a moment and recognize that either Santorum or Casey is going to win this election.
Beyond unseating Santorum, electing Casey could help Dems take back the Senate.
Therefore, while I increase my annual donation to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, I’m voting for the guy who’s anti-abortion, but who does support: emergency contraception, increased access to family planning, same-sex civil union, adoption for same-sex couples, increased funding for public schools, early childhood education, and tuition assistance, and raising the minimum wage to $7.25/hr.
Santorum loves a good Hitler metaphor... so I'm looking at it like this:
If you have the chance to vote against Hitler, and your choices are an imperfect major party candidate who has a strong chance of winning, or a political ideal who has no chance of winning & could conceivably weaken the chances of the imperfect guy -- who do you choose?
As Hassen succinctly stated: “Attempting to create an ideal democracy at this point in the game is a luxury we don’t have in this country.”
peace, love, & voter registration,
jenn mcc.
