Thursday, September 21, 2006

You Don’t Have to Vote for Akaka OR Case

Contrary to what the Democratic Party and the mass media would want us to believe, “one doesn’t need to vote ONLY in the Democratic Primary or all your votes will be invalid.” One can vote in ANY primary -- but ONLY in one primary. That deliberate confusion/deception results in 20% of the ballots being spoiled every primary election, with the likelihood that it could go even higher for this particular primary election, with the resulting frustration for voters and poll workers resulting in even lower subsequent voter turnouts.

Elections are not rocket science -- as the orientation classes for the Office of Elections makes them out to be. Even children in kindergarten can successfully determine who the leader is among them -- unless of course, that unanimity is overruled by the teacher fearing a threat to her own authority in the classroom.

Many don’t want to bother voting because they believe that they MUST vote in every contest and not just for the single best person running in ANY race, as their best vote. Like in most things in life, it doesn’t matter how much one does -- as it does how well one does it. So the voter’s obligation is not just to vote for anybody they’ve seen the name before, but to vote for the person they know best to participate in public discussions and decisions -- preferably those who might see things in a way that they could not themselves.

For many people, that would be Linda Lingle -- as the person who would make the biggest difference if one had to vote for only one person in Hawaii who will make the biggest difference. There’s only one governor of Hawaii -- while there are 100 US senators and 500 US representatives. Then after one makes that most important vote, one has to stay within the color-coded party selections -- but that doesn’t mean that one has to vote for every person within that party either.

Having worked at the polls at which some people feel that they have a right to vote in every party -- and every race as their “right,” what is unclear is that they have a right to choose to participate in ANY, but only ONE -- as their PRIMARY choice. And so from a decision standpoint, one has to first determine the ONE person who makes the biggest difference on the political scene in Hawaii.

That ONE vote is enough to make the biggest difference.

As a polling place chair, I was frequently asked, “I don’t know any of these people; how should I vote?” My best advice was not to, and let those who are best-informed make that decision, rather than arbitrarily and thoughtlessly canceling out somebody’s very intelligent choice. That is the primary reason we have bad government and thoughtless decisions.

At election time, a lot of manipulators know that some people are very vulnerable to misinformation -- and of course, hope to exploit it. Just make your best vote and walk away any time you want to after that.

3 Comments:

At September 22, 2006 4:39 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

http://newsbusters.org/node/7832

Shocker: Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is "Overwhelmingly To The Left"

Posted by Dave Pierre on September 22, 2006 - 20:26.

On his radio show yesterday (Thursday, September 21, 2006), host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Thomas B. Edsall, who up until recently was a senior political reporter for the Washington Post. He had been with the paper for 25 years. Through precise and direct questioning by Hewitt, Edsall admitted something that is rarely heard from a liberal these days. In a shocking admission, Edsall articulated that the biases of the mainstream media are "overwhelmingly to the left." He also proposed that Democratic reporters outnumber Republicans "in the range of 15-25 to 1"!

In the interview, as Hewitt and Edsall discussed the rise of conservative talk radio and the biases of the mainstream media, Edsall stated the following:

EDSALL: ... I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

Hewitt appeared so surprised by the remark that, after a pause, he replied, "Well, that's very candid." Candid, indeed, Hugh!

But, wait. There's more.

On the topic of the political allegiances of "big name political reporters," the following exchange took place:

HEWITT: [Jim Vandehei of the Washington Post] probably is a Republican. But given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?

EDSALL: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.

Whoa! The must-read transcript of this eye-opener is at Hugh Hewitt's blog at TownHall.com. Must-hear audio is available here.

In addition to his years at the Washington Post, Edsall has penned pieces for the American Prospect and The New Republic. One of his most recent works is a book called Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power. It has been billed as a "masterful--and disturbing--work of political journalism that challenges all of us to wake up and take heed before the world has changed beyond recognition."

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Here's more from the exchange in which Edsall admitted the MSM's bias is "overwhelmingly to the left." Again, this is from Hugh Hewitt's blog at TownHall.com:

HEWITT: ... The reason talk radio exploded, followed by Fox News, followed by the center-right blogosphere, is that because folks like you have been the dominant voice in American media for a long time, and you’re a pretty thoroughgoing, Democratic favoring, agenda journalist for the left, and you’ve been the senior political reporter of the Washington Post for a very long time. And people didn’t trust your news product…not you, personally, but the accumulation of you, throughout the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.

EDSALL: To a certain degree, I agree with that.

HEWITT: And so, why do you think it’s wrong, somehow, for people to want to hear news that they don’t consider as biased? I mean, that’s what it is. It’s just unbiased news is what people wanted. That’s why conservatives like me got platforms, and our blogs get read, and our columns get absorbed.

EDSALL: One, I don’t think it’s unbiased.

HEWITT: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.

EDSALL: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

HEWITT: Well, that’s very candid.

EDSALL: Well…

HEWITT: Have you ever said that…in the course…when you were working for the Post, would you tell people who you voted for, and how liberal you were?

EDSALL: You mean people people?

Have a nice weekend.

 
At September 22, 2006 4:40 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The sad thing is that the bias is not perceived as "bias," but is considered "objectivity."

 
At November 15, 2009 3:30 AM, Blogger freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,

 

Post a Comment

<< Home