|
Milkyp, that's ungenerous at best. Irresonsible voting is voting because you like the way the candidate looks or you haven't bothered to figure out what they say they're going to do and whether you agree with it, or at very least figured the political angles from electing someone from that party. In all honesty, how many people do you think voted for the Terminator or Conan rather than Ahnold? He might make a heck of a governor, but macho is no way to pick 'em.
That voting for Bush for any reason is to my mind irresponsible in its shortsightedness, is just indicative of honest disagreement. If someone listens to what he has to say, understands it, agrees with it, and (against all odds and past experience) believes it, then the right thing for them to do is to vote for the schmuck, and tell me to go to hell when I call them a fool for doing it.
Admittedly, though, bullzam would have a stronger point if he hadn't actually suggested what he believes (as do I) to be responsible policy.
Bottom line: there is a difference between voting responsibly, for the guy you think will best serve the constituency, and voting for the guy with the responsible policy. Policy is all a matter of trade offs and value judgements, so labelling something irresponsible and making it stick takes a hell of a lot more work than just picking the politico you think is best.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|