A Non-Vote Is A Vote For Salazar
Absolutists have to be unbalanced. That is my biased conclusion, anyway. This letter to the editor in today's Rocky (scroll down to the letter entitled: values absent in Coors) is an example of such. I'm going to reprint it for the benefit of those without a scroll wheel:
I am a true-blue Republican, but I cannot support Pete Coors. The moral values that persuaded me to support Bob Schaffer are much more important to me than my Republican affiliation. I will not support a man who promotes the immorality of drunkenness. I will not support a man whose company caters to the rebellious act of homosexuality. And besides all this, how can I support the man who viciously attacked my candidate?
I will vote for neither Salazar nor Coors. I am not alone in this - many share my sentiment. I believe that Salazar will triumph because the Republican Party has chosen to alienate those of us who hold conservative moral values. I hope they get the message when they lose in Colorado.
(I'm witholding the name -ed)Fort Collins
Not voting at all is a guaranteed vote for the opposition, which is the same as voting for Salazar. I have a feeling that those same moral values that are preventing him from voting for Coors would not allow him to vote for Salazar, either. So why do it? Looking at his own letter, it would appear that he bought into the Colorado Conservative Voters ad campaign in which they accused Coors of lowering the drinking age. He even expresses his offense at how Coors attacked his candidate. It makes no difference that the Coors campaign was responding to the outright false ads from the 527 who supported his candidate. It's perfectly reasonable, perhaps even responsible, for CCV to trash Coors because they were doing so in the best interest of his candidate, from the writer's perspective, anyway. If that's his train of thought, well it can keep moving right on through the station. I'll take a cab.
This writer appears to be a passionate supporter who is obviously disappointed that Bob Schaffer lost the Primary. I feel for him, but need to point out this fact. The very next day, Bob Schaffer threw his support behind Pete Coors because he understands what is at stake. Bob Schaffer understands the importance of keeping the Senate seat in Republican hands.
If his candidate can do it, what is preventing our writer from doing the same? Pride? Anger? Resentment? Probably a combination of all three, I would guess. The bottom line is there will never be a candidate who conforms to every one of every citizens morals and views. When that candidate is found, which Bob Schaffer was for a great number of people, he will most likely not be electable to a large number of people. In order to succeed, it is imperative that we rally behind the candidate who will give us most of what we want and still win an election. Pete Coors is that guy. Vote for him, or you vote for Salazar by default.
Cross-posted at MangledCat
I am a true-blue Republican, but I cannot support Pete Coors. The moral values that persuaded me to support Bob Schaffer are much more important to me than my Republican affiliation. I will not support a man who promotes the immorality of drunkenness. I will not support a man whose company caters to the rebellious act of homosexuality. And besides all this, how can I support the man who viciously attacked my candidate?
I will vote for neither Salazar nor Coors. I am not alone in this - many share my sentiment. I believe that Salazar will triumph because the Republican Party has chosen to alienate those of us who hold conservative moral values. I hope they get the message when they lose in Colorado.
(I'm witholding the name -ed)Fort Collins
Not voting at all is a guaranteed vote for the opposition, which is the same as voting for Salazar. I have a feeling that those same moral values that are preventing him from voting for Coors would not allow him to vote for Salazar, either. So why do it? Looking at his own letter, it would appear that he bought into the Colorado Conservative Voters ad campaign in which they accused Coors of lowering the drinking age. He even expresses his offense at how Coors attacked his candidate. It makes no difference that the Coors campaign was responding to the outright false ads from the 527 who supported his candidate. It's perfectly reasonable, perhaps even responsible, for CCV to trash Coors because they were doing so in the best interest of his candidate, from the writer's perspective, anyway. If that's his train of thought, well it can keep moving right on through the station. I'll take a cab.
This writer appears to be a passionate supporter who is obviously disappointed that Bob Schaffer lost the Primary. I feel for him, but need to point out this fact. The very next day, Bob Schaffer threw his support behind Pete Coors because he understands what is at stake. Bob Schaffer understands the importance of keeping the Senate seat in Republican hands.
If his candidate can do it, what is preventing our writer from doing the same? Pride? Anger? Resentment? Probably a combination of all three, I would guess. The bottom line is there will never be a candidate who conforms to every one of every citizens morals and views. When that candidate is found, which Bob Schaffer was for a great number of people, he will most likely not be electable to a large number of people. In order to succeed, it is imperative that we rally behind the candidate who will give us most of what we want and still win an election. Pete Coors is that guy. Vote for him, or you vote for Salazar by default.
Cross-posted at MangledCat
posted by Jonathan | 1:10 PM
<< Home