I had friend ask me the other evening how to respond to a friend of hers, a friend who stated she wasn't going to vote for Todd Akin on Tuesday because while she thinks "McCaskill is a socialist," she can't get past Akin's six-second remark. "I'm going to leave that part blank," she said of her ballot. If you leave that spot blank you will have committed an offense greater than the six second transgression for which Akin apologized. If you leave that spot blank you will be aiding Harry Reid in obtaining a senate majority. If you leave that spot blank you will be leaving the decisions on the future Obamacare repeal, two Supreme Court justices, and much, much more to someone else. I find that offensive and unforgivable. If the new line in the GOP is that redemption is now non-existent and that a six-second remark is so great a sin that it eclipses trillions of dollars in debt, failed foreign policy, no senate budget, a rubber stamp for Obama, and disregard for Missouri constituents, then I think some need to reevaluate their political positions. People often forget that tactics mean nothing without a strategy. The strategy of an election is to win. The winning side sets the agenda. If you've had enough of the Democrats' failed agenda of the last four years, vote against it on Tuesday. Don't go for a candidate who was convicted of identity theft, is on probation for a DWI and ineligible to run in Missouri due to his felony record. Don't go for a candidate who thinks that there have existed no black leaders until Barack Obama arrived, a candidate who is alleged to have used the senate dining room as the setting for her husband's stimulus-related business deals. Vote for a candidate who has one of the most conservative records in the House, a candidate who fought Bush on big-spending issues like TARP, a candidate who was among the first to defend the tea party movement, a candidate who thinks the US has no place in the warring affairs of countries such as Libya and Syria. Vote Akin. FYI: excellent reading from my friend, Van:
Despite what 'common sense' might tell you, voting for who the best individual candidate is, is not the purpose of an election. To vote for A candidate, without taking into consideration the dynamics of the race itself, the realistic chances of your ' best candidate' to either win or affect the overall race, and the consequences of the election going to one or the other of the most likely winners, and what effects the likely winner might have in that office, then you have divorced your principles from the purpose they are principally supposed to serve - how the nation will be served by the person who is elected - rendering your actions, unprincipled. First, keep in mind that Principles are an aid for thinking, not a substitute for it, and it is an ever present temptation to cast what is the more pleasing choice, for the short term, as an appealing escape from the more difficult consideration of the long term deeper and more important issues, especially when it is so easy to name such actions as 'being Principled'. But you can't delegate your conscience to a single issue, and while I hope all will reconsider their positions, I strongly suggest you begin by looking beyond your positions to what principles are, and what they are for. [...] If you look towards this November's ballot, whether for President or Senator, or even that of convention delegates, and look no further than the choices offered to you, then you are not applying principles in order to make a worthwhile and principled choice for the long term; instead you are taking the easy way out by making a choice for, and restricted to, the present moment in time, at the expense of what is true across time. That is not behaving in a Principled manner, but its very opposite, that of behaving pragmatically, regarding 'truth is what we agree “works”' for the moment. It's taking the easy way out of a hard decision, it is the action of someone seeking to flatter their own faux pride and self regard, which is itself a violation of conscience and a disregard of principle. [...] Whichever candidate, for whichever office, is more inclined to empower these agencies, or expand them - Hello Barack Obama. Hello Claire McCaskill - is the candidate who must be opposed most. Why? Because in a general election, you should not primarily be voting for a candidate, should not primarily be voting for their ideals, or even for who you feel most comfortable with, the fundamental reason for why you vote, is that it is a fundamental expression of, and a defense of, your Rights, and you should primarily cast your vote for the purpose of asserting, upholding and defending those Rights. You should cast your vote in a manner that in your judgment affords your rights (and the full context of what they depend upon, as thumbnailed above) the best defense possible.Settle in and read the entire thing. It's worth it.