Party Allegiance?

[Andrew Henck]

I had a discussion today with someone about an article that they had read about the potential candidates for the 2008 presidential election. A comment was made that sounded something like this...

"Well (insert potential candidate's name here) would never get crossover votes needed to win."

So I thought about it for a while. I for one have not aligned myself with a "party" so much as a general perspective or ideology that I look for when having a slate of candidates from which to choose. I am curious to see whether or not all those that have a "party affiliation" would stick with their party when voting or even consider voting for another party's candidate.

If you are a registered Republican voter and consider yourself "moderate" would you consider casting a vote for a "conservative" Democratic candidate and so on and so on?

If you have an "independent" affiliation or are unaffiliated with either of the 2 major political parties, how much room around your defined political perspective/ideology would you have when voting?

[Bruce Carriker]

I did not change politics, but did change party registration before the 2004 election. Before that time, I had been registered as a Republican for 28 years.

I am considerably more conservative on "morality" issues than the majority of Democrats. I am considerable more liberal on social issues than the majority of Republicans.

Neither party is Christian, despite the claims of both. I cast my ballot based on who I think best reflects a Biblical perspective on the most issues, even if they are not Christians (For example, if I lived in Connecticut I could easily see myself voting for Joseph Lieberman.)

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Party allegiance? ZERO!!!

I ignore parties. I wish there were no political parties.

For me, it's a question of which candidate at this time most closely aligns with my opinions and my priorities regardless of which party they belong to.

Wilson

[Rich Hudson]

We've had quite a controversy in Washington since the courts insisted that we must decide on a party ballot for primaries and such. I kind of understand the idea that a party should be able to pick their own candidates, but prefer having my options open.

I would tend to vote based on "values" rather than "party".

[Terri Knoll]

to tell you the truth....I am almost ready to check off "I am not a registered voter"

most of my change of ideals has been from reading political discussions right here on Naznet :rolleyes:

the main issue for me is humanitarian.

pro lifers condemn abortion but I haven't seen ANYONE put their money where their mouths are as to providing for unwed mothers. financially or other support.

pro choicers say the mothers life is more important than an innocent human being. aaaccckkk :eek:

that being the ONLY issue for me today, when my choice to pick someone who is prolife ends, so does my voting. then its:
ITS YOUR WORLD, I AM JUST LIVING IN IT!

of course my responsibility does not end just because I do not vote anymore. I have to continue to support prolife issues throught financial means and alot of prayer and elbow grease!

thanx for letting me say my 2 cents :basic05

[Bruce Carriker]

pro lifers condemn abortion but I haven't seen ANYONE put their money where their mouths are as to providing for unwed mothers. financially or other support.



That's because a lot of folks who like to call themselves "pro-life" are not pro-life at all. They are merely pro-birth. To their way of thinking, life begins at conception and ends at delivery, I guess.

After delivery the same "pro-lifers" will hop on their soap boxes and launch into their canned "personal responsibility" diatribes.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Andrew,

I suspect your poll - as most polls - enables us to respond as we think we act, rather than we really act. For instance, I am fortunate to live in a state where we can register independent and vote on whichever primary party ballot we choose. I SAY that I am registered independent and am open to voting by candidate rather than party. My pattern, however, is that I have pretty consistently voted against one specific party. In the end I guess I may not be as open as I aspire.

By the way, I do miss seeing you. Remember, '08 is just around the corner, and if you want to work the primaries in New Hampshire, you've got someplace to stay. You could have a powerful impact on the direction of the nation by being a strong worker in a little but influential pond. :basic03

[Virginia Stimer]

Terri

You said "pro lifers condemn abortion but I haven't seen ANYONE put their money where their mouths are as to providing for unwed mothers. financially or other support."

Having come from the dark ages I spent several years working in a hospital in Oklahoma City that had a home for unwed mothers. Back in the 1950's we would have a census in the home of sometimes up to 50 girls at various stages of pregnancy. They were able to continue schooling and had other activities. The majority of those babies were placed for adoption. With the change in our culture, that home no longer exists but the last I knew they were still providing services to unwed mothers.

Here in Flint we recently had a "fill the baby bottle with change" campaign with the money going to the crisis pregnancy center. I believe that most of our Nazarene Churches gave to that effort. I have also seen other means of support given to unwed mothers, including showers of supplies for the baby.

There is also the fact that our Flint Eastside Compassionate Mission had this comment in the April report: "The Infants Ministry is in dire need of baby formula. We run out way too early in the month. 117 infants received diapers and/or formula in the month of March. We normally are at 175+."

So how did this develop from a discussion of political parties? My vote goes to the person who proves to be pro-familywhich not only includes pro-life but pro-traditional marriage.:fav18

Virginia

[Gary Swartzlander]

to tell you the truth....I am almost ready to check off "I am not a registered voter":basic05

And exactly what is accomplished by "not voting"? Our system of government "good or bad" only works when people participate.

Part of the problem we find our country in now comes from those with the attitude of non-participation who don't vote. The impact is much broader than our Federal Government, it impacts at the most local of levels down to your local public schools.

[Cindi Hammons]

Party allegiance? Not really. Unfortunately in Ohio, one must choose party alliance to vote for much of anything in the primary. If I was registered Independent, the only things I could vote for in the primary are the issues...no named elections.

Most of my adult life I have been a Republican who was willing to vote either way (Voted for Bill Clinton the first time...but not the second). Now I am a registered Democrat because I wanted to vote in the primary against our congressman who is running for governor. Just the thought of him running our state give me the "willies"!

If Ohio allowed a person to register Independent and choose whichever ballot you wanted in the primary, I would register as an Independent who is considered a moderate.

Cindi H.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Party allegiance? Not really. Unfortunately in Ohio, one must choose party alliance to vote for much of anything in the primary. If I was registered Independent, the only things I could vote for in the primary are the issues...no named elections.

Most of my adult life I have been a Republican who was willing to vote either way (Voted for Bill Clinton the first time...but not the second). Now I am a registered Democrat because I wanted to vote in the primary against our congressman who is running for governor. Just the thought of him running our state give me the "willies"!

If Ohio allowed a person to register Independent and choose whichever ballot you wanted in the primary, I would register as an Independent who is considered a moderate.

Cindi H.

Primaries seem to be the most misunderstood part of the election process. I believe that for the primaries only there should be no cross over voting. The primaries are specifically for each party to pick their candidate. Influence from other parties only scues the process. If the candidate of the other party is someone I don't care for then the general election is the place to vote for an opponent. As far as my party is concerned, I want to be sure the best candidate in my party is on the ballot.

Ohio has not had a banner year in politics, I'm not sure either party deserves a candidate and in addition to that, the city of Toledo should be banned from electing anyone at all. You'd think from the way politics is done in Toledo that it was the largest city in the country. It's amazing. If you want either a good laugh or a good cry, read the Toledo Blade news online and follow what goes on in Toledo and Lucas County.

Glad I don't live there anymore.

[Paul Whitaker]

Andrew, couldn't find your email address so this will have to do.

Are you a part of the Henck bunch who were in Cape Verde? I had Kevin in class at MVNU. Just wondering about their (your) family these days.

[Bruce Carriker]

And exactly what is accomplished by "not voting"? Our system of government "good or bad" only works when people participate.

Part of the problem we find our country in now comes from those with the attitude of non-participation who don't vote. The impact is much broader than our Federal Government, it impacts at the most local of levels down to your local public schools.

Gary,

I think there is a growing consensus in this country that the system is simply broken too badly...at just about every level... to ever work again, barring a major overhaul. And those who have solidly entrenched themselves in power control the ability of "we the people" to effect any REAL, MEANINGFUL, LASTING change. If we held an election and nobody came, "the system" wouldn't even notice. The bureaucracies would just continue grinding away, skewing the process to the satisfaction of the "lobbyist du jour".

I think we have become too populous and too diverse; and really ought to consider disunion and reorganization along regional lines, based on common culture and similiar economic interests. New England could become autonomous. The Bible Belt could become the theocracy it really wants to be anyway. Texas could be independent...they think they are anyway. Just make them take Oklahoma with them. Southern California, Nevada, Arizona could become a separate player. Northern California, and the Pacific Northwest could become a country with a large representation of Greens in their government.

I wouldn't ever happen, but I'm not sure it's not preferable to the mess we live with now; that fewer and fewer people really believe in anymore.

[Carsten Schermuly]

Party allegiance? ZERO!!!

I ignore parties. I wish there were no political parties.

For me, it's a question of which candidate at this time most closely aligns with my opinions and my priorities regardless of which party they belong to.

WilsonThis I do often think too. For example, the Social Democrat Dr. Helmut Schmidt (former Bundeskanzler) was "the right man on the wrong side". He had the same class like Dr. Konrad Adenauer (First Bundeskanzler) and made a clear and consequent politic - especially against Moscow and pro NATO. He really was "the right man on the wrong side". Other Chancellors of the SPD we had, did never as good jobs as he did - clear and consequent - no stinking compromises.

[Stan Hall]

I lean more toward Republican than Democrat but I'm a registered Libertarian. Bun then, I don't agree entirely with the Libertarian platform either. I have voted for all three and some independents. I don't put much stock in a candidate proclaiming himself to be a Christian. Whether they act Christian is more important. I also look at whether a candidate actually subscribes to the Constitution. Most of the two major parties don't.

How do we "see" people supporting unwed mothers? Most people who give to various charitable causes don't shout it from the rooftops. I have helped provide assistance to some unwed mothers (no, not relatives) but most of my acquaintences don't know it. The fact that we don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I suspect that most pro-lifers do support such charities among others.

And what's wrong with personal responsibility? I think this world would be a much better place if more people took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their behavior and actions.

Stan

[Bruce Carriker]

"I think this world would be a much better place if more people took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their behavior and actions."

Agreed! Whose idea was it to spread that "brother's keeper" drivel outside the immediate family, anyway?

And what lunatic came up with this classic: "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'"

[Stan Hall]

Your sarcasm is less than becoming, sir.
From whence cometh the idea that being responsible and helping others are mutually exclusive. What an absurd notion!
Being responsible and encouraging others to be so in no way hinders one from helping others in need.
I still don't understand why responsibility seems to be a dirty word.
Encouraging responsibility encourages freedom.

[Carsten Schermuly]

A christian can never be President.
Characteristics do contradict to another.
But
a President can fear the Lord - that is good.

[Barbara Moulton]

Just out of curiosity, what does it mean to be "registered" as a Republican or Democrat. What is the purpose of registering? Is it only so you can vote in Primaries?

[Mark Doble]

For me here in Canada I have no party allegiance. I vote for the candidate who stands "the most for" what I believe.

Last election I voted Conservative because our candidate stood for what I thought was right. Even though it could have put my job in jeopardy. So far so good eh.

[Marsha Lynn]

It varies from state to state, Barbara. In Indiana one can choose either the Republican or Democrat primary ballots regardless of registration. Or they can vote only for school board members, which are elected during the primary in order to minimize political issues for that race by separating it from the general election. In actuality, in my county most county races are decided in the Republican primary. The Democrats struggle to even find candidates for the fall ballot and it takes a strong personality to overcome the handicap of having a "D" next to one's name. For wider areas, things quickly even out. Our U.S. Congressional district is known as "the bloody 8th" because it is so evenly divided and races tend to be hotly contested.

My registration as a Republican has only come into play a couple of times in my life. Back in the 70s, state jobs were given to members of the leading political party in the state government. That is no longer the case, but in 1978, I needed "political clearance" in order to land a summer job cleaning restrooms at a state park. (Fortunately, I had registered as a Republican when I turned 18 simply because I didn't know any better and was politically clean enough to join the night "potty crew".)

It seems like I was asked more recently if I was a registered Republican but I can't imagine why anyone cared. I don't have a registration card or anything so they would have had to take my word for it.

We have electronic voting and my usual approach is to push the button for a straight Republican ticket and then tweak what comes up for races where I prefer another candidate. My political views tend to correlate more with the Republican platform than the Democrats, but when I know enough to make an intelligent choice, I consider the candidates themselves more than the parties they represent. (I'm quite smug right now to report that I did not vote for the Republican governor who is dragging Indiana through some frightful changes. Rather, I did "single issue" voting. He promised us Daylight Savings Time and I voted against him. If only my fellow Hoosiers had been so discerning. They're regretting their short-sightedness now!)

It's interesting to me that among American NazNetters, the Democrats seem to feel isolated and are often defensive (and sarcastic). The conservative Republicans seem to feel attacked by all the liberals and end up defending extreme positions with rising passion. From a moderate Republican point of view, it looks to me that each point of view is well-represented and that no one should ever feel like they're standing alone. Adding in the non-Americans gives us even more views. It seems that our common faith doesn't limit our political diversity. We tend to agree on basic values but disagree on how those values are best expressed in the political arena.

Marsha

Just out of curiosity, what does it mean to be "registered" as a Republican or Democrat. What is the purpose of registering? Is it only so you can vote in Primaries?

[Bruce Carriker]

I still don't understand why responsibility seems to be a dirty word.
Encouraging responsibility encourages freedom.

It's not a dirty word. It's just an idea that has been perverted by one side of the political discussion to promote an agenda of selfishness by blaming those in need for their predicament, rather than doing anything about the predicament.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I still don't understand why responsibility seems to be a dirty word.

The question is--and I know there is not an easy answer--to what extent does one person's irresponsibility impact responsibility to help them?

Suppose the issue is food. Someone is hungry because they are irresponsible. What do we do?

1) Take the responsibility to simply feed them because they are hungry
2) don't feed them because it is their fault for being irresponsible
3) Take the responsibility to feed them and help them to become responsible

Obviously #3 is the most desirabe. It is also the most costly/difficult/effort intensive and we won't always be successful. Nevertheless, it should be our goal.

Wilson

[Gina Stevenson]

If Ohio allowed a person to register Independent and choose whichever ballot you wanted in the primary, I would register as an Independent who is considered a moderate.

Cindi H.

Yes, there are not open primaries here, either; wish there was! Sometimes I would like to help some folks in various categories from more than one party, but in primaries it just isn't possible [MI].

[Stan Hall]

Wilson, I agree completely. #3 should be the goal. We must remember that many of those in need of help are not needy due to irresponsibility. An unexpected layoff can leave one strapped (I've been there myself), one can invest in starting a business and have it fail through not understanding the market or other factors, or changes in the job market can take a toll. Most of these people don't need help for long but when they need it we should help if we can.
Bruce, I disagree with your statement about the agenda of selfishness. In my experience (which I admit is limited) those who promote responsibility are more generous than those who don't. Of course, by generous I refer to being generous with your own money, time and resources. Being generous with other people's money is not true generosity.

[Dave McClung]

If you have an "independent" affiliation or are unaffiliated with either of the 2 major political parties, how much room around your defined political perspective/ideology would you have when voting?

I selected the one that says I will "consider" voting for someone from the other party. I always force myself to read the qualifications and policy statements of all candidates and carefully consider them all. But, it has been about 20 years since I have voted for a Democrat for anything other than a judgeship or local office.

When it comes to national office, particularly the U.S. Senate, personal qualification doesn't mean much. So many important decisions, like confirmation of Supreme Court nominees, are made along party lines that party affilliation outweighs personal qualification. I can't imagine that I would ever vote for a Democrat for a national office.

[Dave McClung]

The question is--and I know there is not an easy answer--to what extent does one person's irresponsibility impact responsibility to help them?

Suppose the issue is food. Someone is hungry because they are irresponsible. What do we do?

1) Take the responsibility to simply feed them because they are hungry
2) don't feed them because it is their fault for being irresponsible
3) Take the responsibility to feed them and help them to become responsible

Obviously #3 is the most desirabe. It is also the most costly/difficult/effort intensive and we won't always be successful. Nevertheless, it should be our goal.

Wilson

None of the above. The correct response should be "Create a structure which makes it possible for nongovernmental charities to do #3." Government isn't capable of #3.

[Barbara Moulton]

None of the above. The correct response should be "Create a structure which makes it possible for nongovernmental charities to do #3." Government isn't capable of #3.


While recognizing that the wisest man in the world told us that we would always have the poor among us.