February 15, 2012 at 10:48am
Your humble correspondent had the honor of being the first person to cast a vote in Cannon County this election year. It was a smooth process and I encountered no difficulties.
One part of the process I would like to see changed in the state law is having to declare whether my intention is to vote Democrat or Republican. That's a private decision I do not think I should have to announce.
Perhaps the voting machinery can be changed so that I can press a button while at the booth to let the system know of my intentions.
February 15, 2012 at 11:09am
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you only have to declare during the primary process. You do not have to declare in the general election.
Personally, I would prefer if the State of Tennessee would pass a law stating we all had to register with a party. Then you stop BOTH sides from trying to elect a candidate in a primary that they consider the weaker opponent to go against in the general election.
February 15, 2012 at 11:22am
You are correct, it is only during the primary process. However, I want the "declaration" process to be a silent one, not something I have to announce out loud.
Also, I don't want to have to register with either or any party to vote.
February 15, 2012 at 2:04pm
I like the idea of registering with a specific party because you take away the ability to do just what I stated above which is try to "undermine" the process by picking a candidate you were never going to vote for in the first place simply to try to get your candidate elected during the general election.
I am not sure how registering with a specific party "undermines a cherised freedom" considering you still get to vote in the primary, you still get to choose who you want to win and can still vote which ever candidate you want to vote for in the general election.
I suppose some might enjoy trying to work the system considering they plan to vote early and vote often and are making statements like: "if for no other reason to rage against the machine vote for Newt, annoy a liberal. Vote Newt."
However, I have come to expect nothing less from that type of individual!
February 15, 2012 at 2:23pm
Corey, would not having to associate one's self with a particular political party in order to vote not also be considered a cherished freedom?
February 15, 2012 at 2:49pm
I will say that I have no issues with stating my party because I am not going to ever change my political party. For me, they represent the ideals and principles that I hold dear to me.
I have the belief that if you are going to believe in something then say it and stand by it and move on.
I know a lot of people may not like what I say sometimes when I comment, but one thing you will always know about me is where I stand. I wish more people were like that.
However, I do understand why some people would not want to state what party they were going to vote for.
I just believe you should be proud enough and strong enough to declare it without shame and without prejudice, but that works for me and probably doesn't for everyone.
Registering with a political party forces you to decide what you really believe in I think.
February 15, 2012 at 3:01pm
OK, but its seems as though it were only yesterday you were opining that people should not be rigid in their thinking and open to all points of view, to which I agree.
If, for instance, the local Democrats had held a primary this year, and if there were multiple candidates in various races, I might have been denied the opportunity to vote for the person I thought was best for the position by having to declare whether I was a Republican or Democrat.
February 15, 2012 at 6:28pm
Kevin I don't ever recall saying someone "should not be ridgid in their thinking". I am not saying I didn't, but at this point I am not sure what you are referring to. I don't consider what I have said rigid, I thought I was saying what works for me.
I do recall saying from time to time that I think people should be looking forward and thinking ahead and try not to live just in the moment they are in.
The Democratic Party of Cannon County chose not to hold a primary this year. I have my suspicions on why I think they did not hold one, but they had the ability to do so at no cost or issue just like the Republican Party did.
Instead they chose to let their candidates run as Independents. Since that is the case, you will have the ability to vote for anyone you see fit from either party.
MMW there were times when indicating a preference could have caused trouble, however I doubt you could name any today.
To eliminate the so-called "barriers" you say would ensure freedom at the ballot box is contrary to your party's beliefs. More regulations is and has been their mantra for years.
If I thought that I or anyone else would be hindered, blackballed or worse then it might be different but again I doubt you could name a serious legitimante threat to your going to our election commission office and declaring which party you wanted to vote for.
There are reasons there are rules and regulations in place for the voting process.
To ensure the integrity of the process, to reduce voter fraud to stop people from voting early and often, to promote the idea of one person = one vote, to ensure that people with disabilities can vote, people of different religions, race and color can vote, etc. They are there for many different reasons and I disagree that they are barriers.
To me a 55 mph speed limit is a "barrier", but one that makes sense and prevents accidents and deaths and keeps people in check. Without it we would drive in chaos. Voting is not much different.
You did not give Sarah Palin credit in your previous post on your quote so it is natural to think you are the person who deserves the credit. I will add that you have made previous comments that imply the same thing and you have made very clear of your desire to have the Republican Party nominate Newt in the hopes Obama will be re-elected.
And that comes back full circle to the idea of registering to vote for a party because it prevents people from doing exactly what you have promoted.
February 16, 2012 at 6:05am
One can't change their mind after they are "behind the curtain" because once you declare you are only presented with the ballot presenting the candidates for the party of which you declared.
February 16, 2012 at 6:11am
P.S.: I have always found the Election Office to be one which will freely and willingly provide whatever information they can which is not protected by law. The office can be reached by phone, fax, e-mail, mail, or you can walk in and make an inquiry.
February 16, 2012 at 6:35am
I think that is right MMW, registering / declaring with a party would make sure you are not dead or out of state and it would help EACH party prevent people from crossing party lines to try and help nominate the weaker opponent in a general election.
I am really confused because that goes against your previous posts concerning the Photo ID Law because that too helps prevent people from voting who are out of state or dead, etc. which is basically the same thing.
Personally I think the idea of crossing party lines and voting for the weaker opponent is a stupid idea because what if the weaker opponent wins the general election? Then you have someone who in all probability is unfit for the office or at least not as good of a choice.
There are other reasons why I think registering with a party is a good idea because it proves who you really are affiliated with in the event someone chose to run for office.
For example if you run as a Democrat for an office, but have voted Republican in the last nine primaries wouldn't you be suspicious of that person's true political affiliation? Wouldn’t you wonder if that person was just trying to get elected as a Democrat so they could actually govern as a Republican or vice versa?
Also, I am not sure if you know it, but how you vote in a primary is public record. The Election Office keeps the primary voting declarations of each individual and you can actually buy a disk that will give you that information. I am sure both parties use that to their advantage when running for office to appeal to their base constituents.
Kevin you are correct. The Election Commission Office has always answered any questions I have ever posed to them in a non-political, unbiased and friendly way. All you have to do is call and ask.
February 16, 2012 at 11:25am
Now here is where we differ in our thinking MMW because restrictions have been placed on voting since the inception of the United States by people with far more wisdom than either you or I.
I don't think those regulations (except for the ones which that were blatantly discriminatory) are "an affront to those who have fought and died for the freedom to vote".
For example: We set the age requirement to vote at 18 so that we don't have 13 year old boys deciding the fate of the nation.
John Adams wrote in 1776 " Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."
However, as times changed so did our way of thinking and our laws adjusted accordingly such as giving black men the right to vote instead of just white men who where were at least 21 years old and land owners. Then came women and we lowered the voting age down to 18.
Now we have voting laws that prevent discrimination based off of race, color or creed.
To say that "you should not have to prove anything other than the fact that you are an eligible voter" is the only thing that should be required in order to cast your ballot is like saying the only thing that should stand in your way of becoming President of the United States is to be eligible to vote.
Rules and regulations are in place for a reason, not always to hinder or restrict, but to protect and provide sense to the process as well.
Again, I also say it goes against the very idea of what your party stands for. They have always been a party that considered more regulations a good thing.
February 16, 2012 at 1:19pm
Well MMW for people who were "bigoted, bias and prejudice" as you called them I would say they did an outstanding job of putting together a nation that has lasted 236 years and is still going strong despite what you say or believe.
So, if it is alright by you then I will take their wisdom over your ignorance all day long since both are proven without a doubt.
Consequently, your idea of what is worthy or unworthy of this nation considering your liberal views really has no merit to any discussion either.
I wonder about you worrying about other people at their jobs. But, I don't expect anything less considering you have no life except to peruse newspapers and websites looking for liberal garbage so you can quote some obscure telephone call you heard Bob Newhart do on TV that no one but you understands. Typical.
February 16, 2012 at 2:19pm
P.S. For the record MMW I approached this discussion with no intent on using sarcasm or trying to have our standard back and forth we have in every post we both comment on, however I see you are incapable of doing the same so unfortunately game on I guess.
The hypocrisy of you calling me a "smartass" knows no bounds.
February 16, 2012 at 9:00pm
Believe it or not I actually agree with MMW on this issue. Some people choose not to always vote along Party lines, but like certain individuals who they believe would do the better job. If we all had to state that we would vote strictly within a particular party, then what would be the use of having a General Election. The candidate from the party with the most declared voters would automatically be the winner. It is an individuals right to choose the PERSON they want in office.
February 17, 2012 at 6:23am
You would only have to vote strictly along party lines in the primaries.
When you get to the general election it would be just as it is now and you would go behind the screen and vote for whoever you wanted to.
As it stands now, you have both parties crossing over in order to try and get the person they think is the weakest opponent elected in the primary so their true candidate in their true party can face off against a stronger opponent in the general election. Which leaves the possibility open to someone truly not qualified winning the election.
Registering with a specific party would eliminate that and we would stop having people trying to elect a man indicted of showing pornographic pictures to a college student while running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina for example (Alvin Greene).
It is those examples that are destroying the process and it is ruining America having candidates elected that could truly do good things for us in my opinion.
Registering as a Republican or Democrat will not affect your ability to vote who you want to vote for in the general election.
It would only affect you in the primaries and you already have to state what party you want to vote for now, so really what is the difference?
February 17, 2012 at 9:44am
Well, no one knows who "old Joe" is but you MMW and I had no doubt that someone like you would do just exactly what I described in crossing party lines in order to try to nominate a weaker opponent.
You are by very definition the exact problem we face in America. You are so consumed with dislike, hatred and bigotry toward a party that you would literally try to infect the system with a candidate who is not as qualified as one who is because they belong to a different party. That is beyond stupid in my opinion.
And YOU CAN STILL VOTE for whomever you choose in the general election so your question:
"then why would not it be just as stupid to cross party lines to vote for a stronger, more qualified candidate that the one in your own party?" is moot as well because that option would exist in the election between the final nominees.
Thinking it is "intelligent" to vote for someone who you know is not as qualified, not as good of a representative to the people and one who couldn't do as good as of a job and taking the chance that the person could actually win proves exactly what I have thought about you for a long time.
February 17, 2012 at 10:36am
"Well, no one knows who "old Joe" is"
I think he is referring to Joseph Kennedy, at least that was my first thought.
February 17, 2012 at 10:51am
OK he might be, but making obscure statements without any previous conversation or reference to them makes it even harder to follow his train of thoughts more than usual.
February 17, 2012 at 1:15pm
MMW you never cease to amaze in your ability to promote the idea of your "superior intelligence" and vast knowledge of all things in the world despite the evidence to the contrary.
I forgot you were on the staff of President Kennedy and spent many week-ends in Kennebunkport Maine sailing on the yatch with Jack, Jackie, Robert and Ted so your close friendship to them would privy you to all of those political "machines" as you call them.
Your point through out this entire thread and others has been nothing but a liberal, socialist form of government that encourages others to stand with their hand out and expect to be given everything without contributing to society in any way except to complain about why you are not getting enough.
The "red meat and water" reference is again one of those half-truths that you half-hear because you are too busy quoting "old Joe" and "Bob Newhart". It would help if you could pay attention and try to get it at least half-right.
The only thing you dislike about the idea of registering with a party is the idea that you can't cross party lines and try to vote for someone you think will less likely to beat the liberal, bleeding heart candidate you really want to win.
And yes, I will agree with you that it is more stupid rationale on your part to think that way.
February 18, 2012 at 12:45pm
MMW again, you are making up lies because I did not write a letter to the editor entitled "Democratic Party Hides Truth" that is fiction in your mind among many other items that don't exist.
Again, if you are talking to me personally via comments on this site repeatedly and no one else it is more than factual to think you are refering to me and I do not take umbrage from anything you say or write about me because you know nothing about me and I really have no care of what your opinion is of me and that is well stated.
The same government (Democratic Party)that gives us the AHCA is the same government that infringes on our rights to own guns, harbors illegal aliens, protects the rights of known and convicted murderers from the death penalty because it is cruel and inhumane treatment while preaching the hypocrisy of the rights of a woman to murder an unborn child.
I think your party has the corner on the market to not only infringe upon the rights of American citizens it also demands and promotes the idea of absolute power to do those things, so I am not in the least bit worried about registering on a state level to vote in a primary.
The gloom and doom attitude doesn't bode well with you because it is contrary to the mantra of the Democratic Party to be against more regulations.
I hope you too have a great week-end. I hope you enjoy it very safely. And never fear losing a "valued enemy" as you call me because you and I are like Superman and Lex Luther. I will always be here to keep putting you back in your liberal jail each time you decide to break out.
Thanks for the tip on Anneberg Public Policy Center, but I believe I will pass on anything you reccommend. The former press secretary to Johnson is hardly on my list of people who can remain objective to any common sense subject we face in America. You might as well listen to Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly. Funny how they all have the same first name. Is your name Bill by any chance?
I too enjoy your comments as well. It keeps me on my toes and despite the sarcasm between us that is a great thing about America. Everyone has a right to their own opinion!
February 18, 2012 at 1:10pm
Corey, did you not write the letter which was posted on this Web site on Thursday, Oct. 14, 2010:
"Democratic Party Hides Truth About ObamaCare"
(of course the headline was probably mine since most letters come without one)
February 18, 2012 at 1:29pm
That is my point Kevin.
I knew that all along because I still have the letter saved to my documents, but I knew what MMW was saying was a half-truth that he half-heard and was mis-quoting as usual.
If he is going to quote it, at least research it and attempt to come close to what is factual.
And you are correct, you gave it the title for the website and the Courier because I did not include one.
Thanks for stating that before he tries to lay that on me as well.
February 18, 2012 at 1:36pm
I am happy to take the blame, in that from my perspective, under the current administration, there is more and more evidence every day to suggest that Democrats do indeed "hide the truth" on a wide range of issues important to me, ranging from the economy to health care to energy and foreign policy.
February 18, 2012 at 2:09pm
Well, I guess this is one of those times when as you said "we agree more than we disagree on most issues" because I completely agree that the truth is and has been hidden much more than we know under this administration.
February 18, 2012 at 4:07pm
Kevin.Do you still have a copy of the letter I sent you a couple of years ago about when the Democrats really took over maybe You should run it again thanks Fred
February 18, 2012 at 5:19pm
ftenpenny: If it was posted to this site it is still available by searching. That is how I located Corey's.
MMW: What truth did GWB hide? I'll assume you're referring to the Iraq WMD data. Some of the information he stated turned out to be wrong, but much of it was the same information the president (and vice president) before him put forth.
February 18, 2012 at 8:04pm
LOL typical MMW trying to deflect the obvious that he could not quote or find a letter that has no bearing whatsoever to the article we should be discussing.
I never wrote a letter entitled "Democratic Party Hides The Truth" because 1. That is not the entire title and 2. I did not title it to begin with.
If you had half of a brain, you would understand that is why I told you that you half-hear something and try to turn it into a half-truth and then get it half-right.
You have seriously lost your mind if you think I am going to research your quotes for you or look things up for your attempt to try to form an argument. I can't help the fact that what you say 3/4 of the time has no bearing on the subject or goes off into the land only you live in and comes off half-cocked and makes zero sense.
You have had the same issue when you were using the pen name dailyreader. The words you write, the liberal manure you try to spread and the tangents that lead to nowhere couldn't be more of an identification to you unless you stood on the courthouse and held up a sign that read I AM DAILYREADER.
I will say this nicely. Worry about you and don't worry about Corey or his job or his family or what he eats or what movie he just got back from seeing or anything else he does. Spend all of your time worrying about MMW because that is a full time job that only you or a psychiatrist could manage.
What did you say your name was again? Bill, Tom, DAVID? Try staying in on your side of the hill and mingle with the other liberals.
The level of competition is really lacking and to put it as nicely as I can sub-par.
February 19, 2012 at 6:40am
MMW, our U.S. Military is and always been one of our most treasured assets. That is because men and women fight and die. You are entitled to your opinions and your views of the facts, but President Bush told no more lies about the Iraq War than what presidents did in wars before him and what a president continues to do in war since him. That's because wars also involve politics. That's also why citizens get to vote every four years on who they want to continue to handle the country's foreign policy and military operations.