Heinlein and The New York Times
I encourage you to take these two bits of information, synthesize them and apply them.
First, author Robert Heinlein:
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
Second, The New York Times:
Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
Vote accordingly.
5 comments on “Heinlein and The New York Times”
Tags
This is somewhat similar to a saying we have in N. Georgia: 'A man cannot go far wrong by finding out who the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is endorsing, then voting for his opponent.'
I don't suppose that this will do as much damage to McCain as would an endorsement by Pravda. But it's pretty similar.
Well, I am a lifelong Republican and I have decided that McCain is far and away my choice for the party's nomination. I know he has done a number of things to really tick off conservatives, but so what? Conservatives have done more to inflict damage on themselves than McCain ever has. He wasn't the one who earmarked the party into minority status. He is a reformer at heart, at the very time that the party needs a reformer desparately. I know that sometimes his reforms don't work, but I would rather have someone who tries, rather than someone who will do business as usual.
Besides, who is a good alternative? Huckabee is a joke, Rudy is a jerk and I'm not sure what Romney is. I don't think anyone knows who he really is.
I also think that McCain's sense of service to his country is the most genuine article of either party's candidates. This country has had two baby boomer presidents, and in my mind they have both been borderline disasters. For whatever reason, I think that baby boomers make poor Presidents. I am a baby boomer so I can say this. I rather liked that WWII generation. And though McCain isn't of that generation he clearly carries their values. He certainly isn't a selfish, self-absorbed person that baby boomers tend to be.
Finally, I really believe the polls that say McCain is the only Republican who stands a chance in the general election. He may be our only shot to avoid the unspeakable disaster of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bruce, you conflate conservative with Republican. They are not the same.
My congress critter, Jim Walsh, RINO NY, is a prime example. He's gone soon, retiring, and the local paper laments the fact that whoever replaces him won't have as much ability to get pork for the area. Upstate NY is an economically depressed area and we lose population every census. The good news is that Jimbo is gone. The better news is that one or two more will be gone, permanently, after the next census.
Why am I down on Walsh? Other than being a porker, how about voting no on ANWR? How about being for the war until the surge worked, but now against it? The man stands for nothing conservative whatsoever, unlike Gary Lee who got squeezed out after the 1980 census.
If McCain were to win, we'd get the same policies we would with Hillary, and the Republicans would take the blame. What about the judges? This is the same guy who torpedoed Bush's nominees. McCain's a hero and I salute his courage, but that doesn't mean I trust his judgement.
[…] in the 2008 primary season I wrote a short post featuring sci-fi author Robert Heinlein’s advice on how to vote without needing to do […]