Monday, March 30, 2009
I vote.
I don't feel I am informed enough on the voting record and intentions of the candidates, and the campaign ads and information is not helpful, so deciding who to vote for is difficult. Voting a straight party ticket is silly and thoughtless. I feel no party loyalties, although in a pinch, I do tend to lean more liberal than conservative --- except when I'm more conservative than liberal.
Even if you do hear the promises, you can't believe them. What a candidate does once in office is frequently quite different from the campaign rhetoric. Sometimes it's because once in office, they are privy to information they didn't have before. Sometimes they just plain told us what we wanted to hear.
Over the years, especially since the mudslinging and negative campaigning began a few decades ago, I have settled on my method for choosing a candidate when all other means fail me.
I vote for the candidate with the least nasty campaign.
I figure that, if nothing else, the campaign style shows the candidate's honesty and integrity. And as far as I'm concerned, honesty and integrity is more important than any history or promises, or anything the opposition says.
When Hillary Clinton went to the cabinet, Kirsten Gillibrand moved from the House to the Senate, and there will be an election to fill her seat in the House.
I can't vote for either of the candidates.
I've never seen a more negative campaign, such bashing, so much distortion, so many appeals to unreasoned emotion. Neither set of ads tell me anything about why I should vote for one or the other, only why I shouldn't vote for the opponent. Ok, I'll take their advice and I won't vote for either. They are both nasty nasty nasty people.
I want a last-minute write-in.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment