Sunday, April 30, 2006

In Case You Missed It: Vote Blackwell on Tuesday

Tuesday's Ohio Primary is potentially a historic one, as voters will have the chance with one vote to do several things that need to be done. These include:

a) breaking the hold of the country-club faction on the Ohio Republican party
b) electing a true social conservative to the governor's office, a platform for genuine social reform
c) electing a true fiscal conservative to the governor's office, in a state that desperately needs to lower taxes and spending
d) proving that African-Americans have political opportunity in more than one political party

All that and more can be done with a vote for Ken Blackwell. As we have said before, he's the best Republican candidate to beat Ted Strickland, he's the best to bring needed change to Ohio, and he's the best to change the shape of national politics for years to come.

Amazingly enough, even the Cincinnati Enquirer agrees.

So we intend to show up early at the polls on Tuesday. It would be fun to be the first in our precinct to vote for Ken. See if you can beat us there.


fiona said...

"Country Club" is defintely the best way to describe the Ohio Republican party.

Ken Blackwell has not been allowed to join the club. That's a great reason to vote for him.

However, don't be disappointed if he sticks his foot in his mouth like Jesse Ventura did while he was governor. Blackwell likes to talk too much and his tongue is likely to get him in to trouble.

However, I'm disappointed in SWNID. How is it that a social conservative is electable in Ohio, but not electable nationally, when we have George Bush in office and Ohio is the preeminent swing state.

Mark (the elder) said...

Another good reason to vote Blackwell is simply that the Dayton Daily News recommends against it. With an indicator like that, it would be hard to go wrong.

mark (the elder) further said...

I'm trying to figure out what Fiona said. A social conservative is not electable nationally because Ohio chose Bush over Kerry?

Unless Kerry were thought of as a social conservative, that doesn't make much sense.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Fiona, once again, you can be as disappointed as you want that I am not willing to support a social conservative who does not exist, but I remain committed to supporting actual candidates.

My SWNIDish analysis is that there is no credible social conservative running for Prezzie in 08. Bill Frist and George Allen are not credible candidates. We keep talking about "a social conservative," but we never talk about a specific candidate. Why? Because there isn't one.

When one emerges, I'll consider her. In the meantime, I will back the guy who can do the job on the Islamofascists and the deficit and hope that with the backing of a majority in Congress that he can do the equivalent of a Nixon-in-China on abortion.

George Allen said...

What's wrong with me? I got a good write up in Nat Review by Rich Lowry.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

For one thing, you can't use upper-case letters.

For another, you're a Senator. Unless you daddy buys you the presidency (JFK), you're doomed.

fiona said...


You are precisely right. It is premature to back a Republican presidential candidate. However, it's not premature to point out the major vulnerabilities of a likely candidate.

Mark (the elder):
I suggest you get a wheelchair and a hearing aid. You may want to work a few cross word puzzles too so you can keep up with the rest of the pack. It is SWNID who has implied (and maybe outright said) that a social conservative is unelectable in a general presidential election because "the country has chosen" the liberal path on abortion and homosexuality.

George Bush disproves that myth, and SWNID is flat out wrong with where the country is on the issue of homosexual marriage and homosexual rights. The country is evenly split on the abortion issue.

The paradox is that SWNID believes Ken Blackwell is electable in Ohio. Ken Blackwell is a social conservative. He is running for governor of a swing state (50% liberal, 50% conservative). Ohio usually determines the presidential election (the definition of a swing state). So how is it that a social conservative can get elected (presumably though because the Republican primary is today and we don't know that Blackwell will win it or the general election) in Ohio, but not nationwide? That's a problem in SWNID's thinking that he has yet to explain.

It is SWNID who believes Blackwell is electable (otherwise he wouldn't endorse him). It is SWNID who believes a social conservative is unelectable to the presidency in '08. Hmmm.

My cookies are burning, so I must cut my thoughts short.

fiona said...


I'm not disappointed that you are not supporting a social conservative (whether or not she exists currently). I'm disappionted you are supporting a social liberal who does exist.

bryan dove said...

The difference between SWNID and all armchair politicians is that he doesn't rely on his government to make a difference for good and his society. He himself accepts the responsibility of being salt and light and sees how the church, not the government, is God's only hope for people. Nothing could be more social or conservative or socially conservative. Hats off to you SWNID, you make the difference and inspire other to do likewise!

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Fiona, you've missed my subtle (?)point on where the country is on abortion and gay rights. It's split, but it's not even. We're looking at a range of opinion that tends to support a libertarian status quo. The mushy middle likes things as they are, sadly. And that plays to the hands of those who want legal abortion and expanded "rights" for same-sex marriage and such. Read the polls that break opinion into five categories, not just two. You'll see what I mean.

Of course social conservatives can get elected, if they have that ineffable characteristic of "electability." Blackwell has it (maybe nationally in '08 as a running mate? with Rudy?). Dubya had it. Frist and Allen don't have it. Romney ... we'll see.

But here's the point: even a socially conservative president can't change the bigger picture on abortion or gay rights without a larger change in public opinion that clearly supports such change. That's why I can't make those issues the only ones on which I base a political decision, sometimes not even the primary ones. Voting for a pro-life President in November of '08 doesn't make the country any more pro-life in January of '09 than it was in October of '08, regardless of the winner.

If going-on-16 years of Reagan and Bush II have shown us anything, it's that you need more than a socially conservative president to have a socially conservative body politic.

And if the last two years have shown us anything, it's that the McCain juggernaut is on cruise control to the nomination in '08. SWNID doesn't trust the co-author of McCain-Feingold, the worst piece of legislation since Smoot-Hawley, maybe since the Fugitive Slave Act. So we're stoking the Giuliani furnace long before cold weather sets in, to do our share to halt the "inevitability" of a McCain nomination.

Keep up the posts, Fiona. Everyone likes a good fight.

fiona said...

I've got cat scratch fever.