Exactly the point I wanted to make to Ms. Larimore. I found this most recent entry by her fairly thoughtful, and felt it carried a better analysis than is usual for XX Factor, from Larimore or the others.
Why R.L. says "I've shaped—and reshaped—my
beliefs and opinions through years and years of life experience... and I can't imagine having suggested four
years ago that people abandon their beliefs or their party just because
John Kerry was an inferior candidate..." I don't understand AT all. If one believed Kerry was an inferior candidate, truly, shouldn't they consider switching sides for one they feel is more qualified? Is it better for Americans to vote for someone they feel reflects their own worldview, or someone who is best able to do the job? It seems to me loyalty to party should come far below loyalty to country or family or duty... somewhere around loyalty to Kellogg-Brand Cereals. To stretch the analogy, if you like Kellogg's, you know what you'll get and have every reason to expect it'll continue to please you. But if they change their formula, and are still Kellogg's but now you don't like the taste or nutrition, why should you stay with them? What does loyalty to personified conservative or loyalty abstractions have to do with anything, Rachael?
I heartily encourage anyone who thinks one candidate is not up to the job, is inferior, to vote for the other one -- any of the other ones. That just seems to me to be horse sense. (Not to say that there aren't reasons to turn up your nose and vote for a bad candidate from a party you support -- those reasons might include strategic concerns like control of Congress; but these reasons aren't the same as blind loyalty, but rather sacrificing one agenda for the greater agenda. This appears similar to loyalty, but it's not - it's still based on an in-depth analysis of the situation and not some compulsion for tradition.)
