First, a tip of NAC's hat to David Mann (News-Tribune), whose piece covering this same ground appeared in the Saturday, October 21 edition of the Tribune:
Professor X: Libertarian is the ‘x’ factor in a 9th District race; Every vote counts in this neck-and-neck congressional battle.
In a campaign in which U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-Ind., has spent more than $1.1 million fending off threats from the political left, a previously unforeseen hazard has been growing on the political right.
Mann beat us to it, and more thoroughly, but since the article already had been written ...
----
It is obvious that the 9th District Congressional race is going to be a tight one. Only 1,500 votes separated loser Baron Hill (D) from winner Mike Sodrel (R) in 2004, and recent polls show the rematch too close to call.
Money is pouring into the district from afar, negative television ads make the daily case for moving to a civilized nation where such electoral shilling is banned, and the overall prognosis for coherent democracy is gloomy.
NAC previously has expressed its dismay with Hill’s centrist tendencies, our concurrent disgust with Sodrel’s Republican “values,” and our deep, dark depression and excessive misery over the complete lack of genuine choice inherent to the two-party system. There is no need to revisit these themes. They make us quite disillusioned already.
However, with the election only two weeks away, there is an urgent need to examine the election prospectus from a tactical standpoint. In short, it’s time for the unaffiliated to decide for whom to vote so as to induce the least guilt and self-loathing.
Bear in mind, the author has yet to formulate an answer to these questions. Readers, please assist by contributing your comments.
Is it possible for Libertarian challenger Eric Schansberg to muster enough support to influence the outcome?
If so, which major party candidate stands to be hurt the most by votes cast for Schansberg?
Will these votes be coming from likely Hill voters, or likely Sodrel voters?
Speaking personally, it’s the logic of the Great Emancipator, paraphrased and updated for modern times, during which the Republicans have come to embrace the “logic” of the Old South and a Seymour-based Democrat seems determined to offend us as deeply as his Republican opponent by means of a headlong rush to the right side of the divide:
"If I could vote for Hill to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could vote for Schansberg to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could leave all of them alone and skip the election to beat Sodrel I would do that. The thing is to beat Sodrel.”
Can a vote for Schansberg help beat Sodrel?
Or, are we best to grit our teeth, swig vigorously from the bottle of bonded previously secreted to circumvent the election-day ban on alcohol, and scratch the oval for Hill?
---
From the Sunday edition of the Courier-Journal (apparently not archived on line) comes this closing citation, courtesy of James R. Carroll’s “Notes from Washington” column. It is taken from Esquire magazine's current list of political endorsements:
Indiana District 9
Mike Sodrel (R)
Baron Hill (D)
Mike Sodrel is spending more time talking about his problems with the Democrats than about his own achievements. That's an argument for his opponent in itself, but suggesting that a vote for Hill—a conservative Democrat and former congressman—is a vote for "San Francisco" betrays his (Sodrel's) stupidity and utter lack of distinction.
Esquire endorses: Hill.
In fact, the assocation of "San Francisco" with "Baron Hill" is the best reason yet to vote for Hill, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hill. If only on the assumption that when in the majority, Baron Hill will be free to vote his conscience without regard to election year shadings. If only to guarantee Democratic control of the House. If only to prevent a Bush rubber-stamp.
Hill MAY not be as "blue dog" as he makes himself out to be, but Mr. Sodrel is an automatic Bush vote. Anything is preferable, and a vote for Shansberg IS a vote for Sodrel.
Randy I do not agree with a lot that you have to say, but this one is right on the money - "If only to guarantee Democratic control of the House. If only to prevent a Bush rubber-stamp."
As far as your statement about Mr. Shansberg, that is why we are stuck with just two parties in this country. People do not wish to go the extra mile and try to get the Mr. Shansbergs of the US elected, they wish only to have the lesser of the two evils.
Of those who agree with me more than Hill or Sodrel, only the more principled will vote for me. The more pragmatic will choose the lesser of two evils. Of course, I hope you and others will be more principled than pragmatic. Why hold your nose as you vote?
The other issue: what signal do you want to send? That focusing on secondary issues, pulling out shiny objects to distract us (e.g., Foley and flag-burning), staying in Iraq or using it for political means, running a bunch of irritating ads, and so on-- is acceptable or not.
enjoy! eric
www.ericforcongress.com
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, guys. For the record, I vigorously oppose the Libertarian philosophy. I may enjoy reading Ayn Rand, but I reject the non-solution solution of the Ls.
I CHOOSE Hill, I don't settle for Hill. But thanks for asserting that I'm unthinking. It affirms my diagnosis that those who think politics is "icky," those who refuse to come to the negotiating table, those who do not seek to influence policy by participating, are much happier with the way things are than they let on.
Show me some examples of progressive thinking in the current two party system in this country, especially inside the beltways of DC.
I for one do think that you are a thinker and are a worthy part of change that will come to this small community, keep up the good work.
This midterm election is about one thing, probably better stated as one person. George Bush.
If you like him and like his policies and like the direction he's leading the nation, then vote for him.
If you do not like his policies and do not like the direction he's leading the nation, etc., then vote for the person who will most likely be an obstacle to him.
I am not a Libertarian. I have read and studies the political philosophy of Ayn Rand and find her to be ethically bankrupt especially her perspectives on altruism. I guess, as a person who lives and works within a religious envirnoment this makes sense. But I can't find myself voting Libertarian.
We do have a 2 party system. I don't think it's very good or serving us particular well. But it is what we have. If a person opposes George W. Bush they pretty much have to vote for Baron Hill. Mike Sodrel has supported Bush on most everything.
We can debate the system and our options until we turn purple. Sometimes we have to live with what we have and work for change. But this election is too critical to worry about the system and more about who is in office.
(gasp) Randy, you actually enjoy reading Ms. Rand?
I'm only kidding, of course.
Redemption won't happen that first Tuesday of November. It is a start, and nostrils clenched or otherwise, it is essential to do such, especially given the current implosion of so many sacred and principled glad-ganders.
I will vote for Baron Hill with good conscience, and not just along party lines. Sodrel is a rubber stamp for Bush. It has nothing to do with party lines in my books.
I appreciated Baron Hill when he served, and his accessibility on all issues that were pertinent to me and mine.
I do not have any LESS principles for my choice. Alienation of voters is what a blanket statement like that will bring, whether your intentions or not.
Go Baron. Thanks Roger.
Thanks for the many kind words. Such experiences have made my run more enjoyable! I've also enjoyed the debates/forums and the radio ads (available on the website if you haven't heard them yet-- good fun!)
To All4Word and Democrat in FC, the first phrase in my post was "Of those who agree with me more than Hill or Sodrel..." Since you agree with Hill more than me (on what issues?), my comments are not relevant to you and you should not take offense. The context of the original remarks was a desire to be tactical (pragmatic) vs. a desire to vote without guilt, self-loathing or the need for heavy alcohol consumption prior to voting. You, apparently, are among those who can vote for Hill without guilt, etc.
To Feel the Paine, thanks for the applause. I am the only fiscal conservative in the race. But to clarify, I'm not "conservative" as the term is typically used-- and in fact, have two important issues that should appeal to many Hill voters. 1.) I want our soldiers out of Iraq more quickly (and have expressed this more passionately and more clearly) than Hill; and 2.) I have passionately enunciated a progressive agenda to lessen the harm done by govt to the working poor and middle class (on payroll taxes, Social Security, corporate subsidies, and education).
I understand the tension felt by many (not all!) typical GOP and Dem voters. To return to the initial posting: for many people (not all!), this race is a choice between one of two politicians who have little to offer except annoying ads, critiques of the other major-party candidate, and a desire to be a placeholder for their political party-- or me.
Thank you, Eric, for making a legitimate attempt to provide an alternative. While I disagree with Libertarianism in general, your issues-based campaign has set an example that the other two yahoos in the race would do well to follow.
There's simply no question who amongst the three candidates is winning votes based on their integrity and it most certainly isn't Hill or Sodrel.
Regardless of the final vote tally, you have made a difference in the race and gotten people to think. Several people, both liberal and conservative, have commented to me about how much they appreciate your approach. Well done.
I'm in the familiar position of echoing Bluegill's articulate summary.
I, too, appreciate what Dr. Schansberg has done this time around, even if I've elected in the end to blacken a different oval. It's a rare thoughtful exception to a sordid political rule.
Although my conscience can live with the imperative of defeating Mike Sodrel at all costs, and my doubts can be deferred a few more weeks, going without alcohol probably isn's an option at this point.
It's regrettable that we must live in a country that provides so many choices of satellite entertainment and burger toppings, but so few outlets for political sensibility.
Post a Comment