Category Archives: Election 2012

When acting ‘on principle’ is unprincipled behavior – part 1 of 2

When acting ‘on principle’ is unprincipled behavior (Cross posted from Blogodidact)

When I hear people proudly proclaiming t

hat they are going to make a ‘principled choice’, that they are going to ‘vote my conscience’ or ‘stand my ground!’ by either not voting or voting for a 3rd party this election, I take notice.

I even Rant.

Especially when I hear mirror images claiming the same ground, I want to get clear on what it is that we’re talking about. And not just out of curiosity or for argument’s sake but because if they are being principled or behaving conscientiously in doing what I am not doing – then what am I doing?

If I don’t agree, and have no basis but inclination for my position… then that’s some scary thin ice to be standing on. That’s disturbing. And it should be disturbing. Matters of principle and conscience should be taken seriously, and when people you respect come to opposite conclusions from yours, it’s well worth reconsidering the issues and your reasons for them. Why? Because ‘The Good Life‘ depends upon how you live your life, and if how you are living your life has little to do with being (properly) principled and conscientious… what kind of life can you be living? Isn’t that Reason enough?Are there more important issues to your life as a whole, than living it thoroughly and well?

And if on reconsidering them, you find you still disagree? A decent respect for the opinions of others requires that you declare the reasons for your disagreement.

In this case, I only wish that I could chalk up the disagreement to disagreement alone, but for all the claims being made on the basis of principle and conscience, as I’m looking at their positions – and I have listened and reexamined them – I am not seeing actual principles being upheld – I see only the appearance of them… not the substance; a preference, not a principle.

Of course I grant the grounds for personal choice and disagreement as to what is best, but these particular claims, are claimed to be being made on the basis of principle and conscience, and that exceeds the reach of personal preference, or the deference of friendship.

And for one friend (who, BTW, has donated countless hours of his own time, effort & money defending our Rights in court) who thought my rant couldn’t possibly apply to him:

“… are you suggesting that, me being a principled libertarian who has never voted for candidates based on their political party, I would not be acting on principle by continuing to vote only for those I believe to be the best candidates?”

, I’ve got to answer that if by ‘best candidate’ you mean, here and now, after the primaries, in the general election, if you are voting for who you think the best individual candidate is, who most reflects your views and convictions, as the primary purpose for giving them your vote; without regard to the purpose of the office and without regard to the dynamics of the race, without regard to the immediate and long term consequences of one the most likely winners winning, etc, then I regretfully must say – yes, then it applies to you as well, and perhaps it even applies to you most of all.

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.

What are you talking about?
Continue reading

The Curious Case of the Unquestionable Senator Claire McCaskill – Media? Can’t you find your words?

(Cross posted from Blogodidact) I’m just a little curious about why those who are paid to be curious, are showing so little signs of being, even the least bit, curious. Those of you who saw the MO Senate Debate last week… saw Claire McCaskill wearing her usual calm, cool & collected, poised and color coordinated self, the very picture of the moderate professional.

And then… Dana Loesch asked about a whistle blower from her husband’s company, and POOF! Moderate Claire vanished in a puff of ire, and nasty, spitting mad Claire appeared in her place.

What I’m curious about, is what about that story, of her husband cutting deals in the Senate dining room, what about that made little miss moderate Claire McCaskill become so unhinged?

Why did her campaign squelch the story when the New York Times considered running it? Why did her campaign try and silence the Daily Caller from running it?

But even more curious, is why are there no journalists in Missouri even looking into this story?

Well, almost none, the Southeast Missourian did run one story:

“Conservatives calling out McCaskill for suit against husband”

Which is just fine, they don’t have to support the story… but… as journalists, isn’t it their job to investigate and report the story, so that their readers and listeners are aware and informed?

Why have no other NEWS Media outlets but this one, looked into the story?

Isn’t curiosity… their job? Continue reading

Two-Faced Claire! McCaskill sells out Missourian Union members for Texas friend$

(Cross posted from Blogodidact)
Hey Claire, riddle me this: On the one hand you claim that cheap cialis online

-senate-control-not-important/” target=”_blank”>controlling the Senate isn’t all that important

Text Your Ex Back. Studying With Ex Boyfriend I Want My Ex Boyfriend Back I Want My Girlfriend Backhow to get your ex boyfriend back

(and yet you are currently in, and running again for … the senate…right?), and on the other hand, your Democrat party’s control of the senate has given your husband’s business $40 million or so in Obama stimulus dollars.

Huh?

How does that work out? It’s almost like your Right side doesn’t know what your Leftist side is doing?

Let’s look again… on the Right: “Control of Senate: ‘No biggee’

And on the Leftist: Claire’s husband snaps up $40 million in big Obama stimulus bucks.

That just doesn’t balance out, does it?

Oh, but wait, then… it also looks like the Leftward hand doesn’t know what the behind the back knife-holding hand is doing either… why else would mostly Democrat leaning Flight Attendant union members protest Claire McCaskill’s campaign office with chants of:

“Represent Missouri not Texas!” and “Texas has 3 Senators, Missouri only 1!”?

 

It seems as if the extremely Two Faced Claire betrayed her Missouri constituents for her old college friends and donor$ from… Texas.

Stacy E. Washington filed a post from today, from the site outside Claire’s St. Louis office, where a hundred or so Flight Attendants were demonstrating just how very displeased they are with being flown around on AirClaire:

“According to the two [American Airlines] flight attendants I spoke with this morning, Claire has sold them down the river for campaign donations and as a direct favor to her old college roommate, Ann Loew, who is, you guessed it: the APFA Executive appointee!”

Are you Joking? That’s extremely Two-Faced, even for you Claire!

 

 

Why so serious?

Missouri: You are the Show-Me state… how much more do you need to see?
Vote McCaskill out of office before she helps you some more!