A couple years ago, while reading an article about some internal strife in my state’s Republican Party, I was surprised to read that, “the state GOP has a policy of not endorsing one Republican over another.” I had noticed that this seemed to be the party’s practice, but didn’t know it was an actual policy.
You see, in my view, it is the duty of a political party to select it’s own candidates, or at least to inform the voting public, and party supporters, as to which candidates actually meet with the party’s approval, and, it is hoped, conform to its platform. This is especially important in a state like mine, where anyone can have their name placed on the ballot as “Prefers Republican Party,” or any other party for that matter, including the occasional fictitious party name. It seems to me that if a party desires to maintain an appearance of actually standing for something, it would want to make sure it is being represented by candidates who adhere to certain values. Nevertheless, it appears the Republican Party would rather be represented by, and be defined by, anyone under the sun who places their name on the ballot and gets enough votes to win.
You can understand my surprise when, a few days ago, I receive an email from my state’s Republican Party chairman directing people to a list of candidates to vote for in the primary election. No, I’m not a member of the R party and never have been, but they insist on sending me mail and email anyway, and even the occasional membership card, which I quickly dispose of.
But wait, I thought my state’s Republican Party didn’t give endorsements, so what’s with this list of candidates to vote for? Continue reading “Republican Endorsements”
“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
It’s that time again – time for another “special election.” This time, the City of Spokane is looking to renew a levy (i. e., Tax) for emergency medical services (EMS) at an April 26 special election. But why is the city spending taxpayer money to hold a special election for this single measure instead of just adding it to the November general election ballot? Well, it’s for the same reason that every special election is held – it’s because levies, bonds and other tax measures have a better chance to pass at special elections than at general elections.
I expect we’ve all heard the phrase, “three coequal branches” used to describe the composition of our federal system of government. In fact, we’ve probably heard it so many times that we don’t even pay attention, we just accept it as fact and move on. But, is it true? Are the three branches of our federal government really “coequal?”
When we give our endorsement to someone or something, we intrinsically connect ourselves to the object of that endorsement and to the values which it embodies, thus lifting – or lowering – ourselves to the level of the entity we have endorsed.
The Conservative Right seems to operate from a general assumption that things keep getting worse because liberals are in power and democrats win all the elections. However, I got curious and did a little research on the topic. I discovered that over the past 20 years, republicans have held 57% of the control of our federal government – 68% if you add in the Supreme Court – that’s a 68/32 split in favor of the republicans. Among the union states, the elephant party holds complete control (legislature and governor) of nearly half the states (23) – more than three times as many as the dreaded donkeys (7). It turns out that America is overwhelmingly republican-controlled.
Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists who are going around blowing people up. In fact, many can be said to be living at peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. Some people contend that the problem is with just a few “extremists” who engage in acts of terror. Clearly, that was the view that George W. Bush was promoting when he called Islam “a religion of peace.”
Perspective 