Dear Micki,
In a few days you will be voting, not only for the next President, but
also for your next Representative. Many will be voting for their next
U.S. Senator.
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But I do recognize that
there are still differences between the two. I also recognize that,
regardless of what candidates of both parties say, when they get to
Washington their vote will fall along party lines about 98% of the
time.
Some politicians of both parties are notorious for saying one thing at
home and voting differently in Washington. In fact, both the Senate
and the House have ways to make it appear that the members voted the
way folks back home wanted them to vote without affecting the outcome.
That means that we should seriously take into consideration the party
affiliation of the candidate. Why? Because when they get to Washington
they are expected to vote the way the party leaders want them to vote,
regardless of how folks back home feel.
Here are differences between the parties on two issues we consider
extremely important. Again, members can be expected to vote along
party lines.
DEMOCRAT
Pro-abortion
Pro-homosexual marriage
REPUBLICAN
Pro-life
Pro-traditional marriage
I strongly urge you to give this issue serious consideration when you
vote. And by all means go vote.
Feel free to forward this letter to others.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Since when are present-day Republicans pro-life and pro-traditional marriage? If one wants to know where their jurisdiction's candidates fall, he/she would be better off consulting vote-smart.org or a similar site, rather than that email. The author of that email certainly doesn't live near me. No Republican on my sample ballot for this election is truly pro-life. The only pro-lifers (other than write-ins) to be found are third-party candidates, usually Constitution party candidates.
thank you for sharing, kelly. i know that can truly be the case in many places; and unfortunately, sometimes it is a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
The difficulty, of course, is trying to distinguish which is the lesser of two evils.
If it is to be measured along a time line and solely upon the abortion issue, Kerry is more evil. If, however, Bush losing sends the Republican party back to the Right then a Kerry vote may not be more evil over time. Of course one must also consider legislative appointments which will have a decades-long impact in an era where courts, as opposed to the electorate, dictate social policies.
Kerry legislative appointments will still have to pass through the Republican Congress.
I fear, though, that we have become single-issue voters. I cannot formulate a good argument as to why that should not be the case especially when the issue is defending the defenseless. In my gut, however, I feel that there must be more.
wow. you sound so smart, honey!