From the latest “Up Against the Wall” comes an attempt by Terrence Wall to rationalize why voters should choose a Republican in the 2010 U.S. Senate race*:
The alternative is for the U.S. to continue this phenomenon of alternating back and forth every other election between one party in control and then the other. What if there was an alternative — what if swing voters voted not for the candidate, but for the opposite party, i.e. they split their vote? In other words, if one party has absolute control, they voted for the other party?
Did you get that? What Terrence is saying, in a nutshell, is that he doesn’t want voters to vote for the best candidate in a given election; he just wants voters to vote for the candidate from the party opposite the one in power, even if that candidate is barely qualified for the job.
In the same column, Wall also goes on to say, “What we need is a candidate who can say no to his/her party’s biggest spenders and still retain party support.” I couldn’t agree more with Terrence Wall, but thankfully Wisconsin already has a U.S. Senate candidate who can a say no to big spenders, and that candidate is Sen. Russ Feingold.
*And I’m betting Terrence Wall would just love to be that candidate voters choose.
Recent Comments