Gloria Ferris

one woman’s view from a place by the zoo in the city

Say It Isn’t So

with 13 comments

Something is greatly disturbing me on this Election Day.  Reading comments on blogs, reading news stories from the wire services, and receiving three phone calls last night from Republican friends asking for advice on which judges to vote for on the Democratic ballot has made me shake my head in wonder.  How have we come to this?  Has the casino mentality really entered our election process?  For years, I have felt that the comparison to horse races and other sports events didn’t bode well for how we looked at elections, but this year has made me convinced that we have come to what may be seen as a new low.

The crux of my concern is this, folks; apparently the Republicans led by Rush Limbaugh believe that their boy John McCain has a better chance in November if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton.  Hence, Republicans switching parties to help us Democrats choose our candidate to run in November.  Does anyone else think that this scenario is terribly wrong? Independents are the only ones who should decide on Election Day if they want to back one particular party over another to nominate a candidate for president.

Don’t get me wrong. If a Republican or Democrat truly believes that the ideology of their party no longer represents what they believe then by all means change parties, but to cynically change parties for the short term for the ability to choose the candidate for the general election, because you have no race in your own party, is just PLAIN WRONG!! 

The first time I saw this happen was when Democratic women were urged to vote for Robert Dole in the primary so that in November a pro-choice candidate would win the presidency.  I thought it was cynical and wrong then, and I still do.  We should not be switching parties like we do last year’s fashions.  But then again, does this speak to a much deeper problem within our party system?

I think that the bigger question might be why is there such little loyalty to a party that switching is no big deal?  Could it mean that the party system is little more than frosting to hide the fact that under the surface not much is different between them?  Would anyone say that either party speaks to a large percentage of Americans or, would it be safe to say that each party speaks more to smaller factions and special interests while the huge majority of us feel like poor wayfaring strangers?

After the dust settles and the winners are announced later tonight, several questions will remain?  Just whose interests were served today?  And, how can we fault voters for cynically feeling that the votes they cast really don’t mean very much?  I challenge each and every one of us to turn this country toward a new day and get off this cynical self-interested merry-go-round that infiltrates one of the cornerstones of our republic.  We need to treat our election process with the respect and dignity that it deserves.  Our ancestors who founded this country and those of us who had ancestors who came here for a better life deserve better from us their descendents.  Our children and grandchildren deserve a better legacy that what we are forging today.

I hope that each and every one of you voted today for someone that you believed in and not because you thought that that person would lose in November.  How very sad that some of us see changing parties as a valid option, not because of a change in belief but trying to achieve an outcome.  We need to remember that this is not a game of chance but the future of our country.  We may not agree on how to get to where we are going, but we should all agree on how damn important it is.





Written by Gloria Ferris

March 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

13 Responses to 'Say It Isn’t So'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Say It Isn’t So'.

  1. […] Gloria Ferris » Blog Archive » Say It Isn’t So […]

  2. It IS wrong, Gloria.

    Not only is it wrong, it’s deceitful — and cheating. But, then again, these are people that have been taken in by one of the most evil men in American history — in my opinion — none other than Karl Rove.

    You wouldn’t have seen this from Republicans 20 years ago — which just goes to prove that the Republicans are no longer serving the country, they’re serving themselves — and like gluttons to boot.

    It’s all part of what I’ve been saying all along: we no longer care about one another; it’s everyone for themselves now. I blame those that are desperate to get others to live out their belief systems (for *one* example, to force non-Christians to live “Christian Values” — whatever they are), instead of allowing each of us to make our own choices about how to live.

    Supposedly, it was better 40 years ago. Not quite, but that’s their fanciful thinking. The fact is, not everyone in this country is Christian, not everyone in this country is Anglo-Saxon, and not every person in this country believes in the right of women to vote.

    Even my own mother-in-law thinks that the Presidency is no job for a woman! Even President of Euclid City Council!

    It IS better today, in terms of individual choice, but you’d have a hard time convincing any one of these reactionary “folks” (I have a better term, but can’t use it here) of that.

    Let them live in their own “Leave it to Beaver” world and stop bothering the rest of us.

    Will Kessel

    4 Mar 08 at 10:31 PM

  3. Wow, there is so much dumbness in this post, I don’t know quite where to begin. First of all, this “phenomenon” of Rush Limbaugh voters switching party lines to vote for Hillary can in no way be quantitively proven as fact. Many Republican voters might have switched over to vote for Obama. In fact, that is more plausible given how much of them hate Hillary.

    Second of all, if you think this is a Republican conspiracy to sabotage the Democrats then you forget Florida where many Democrats were believed to cross party lines to vote in the Republican primary becaues their primary was essentially meaningless. In fact, Mitt Romney blamed his loss to John McCain on that very fact.

    Third of all, I absolutely hate when people say there are no differences between the parties. If you see no differences between the parties, then you are where you belong on the fringe. You are either a reactionary KKK member or a communist zombie who feels that tearing down America’s economy and taxing and subsidizing everything is a good idea. I am glad you have no voice in this government if you belong to either of those groups.

    Fourth of all, this talk that special interests are dominating our politics is ridicilous. We all represent “special interests”. You have been pushing the Ohio Hub on this site. That is a special interest. You can say all you want about how it will benefit all, but thats what all special interests claim. Ethanol producers claim that ethanol will rid us of our dependence on oil, but in reality it does nothing of the sort. Only thing it has done is drive up food costs. The point being that any political view can be considered a “special interest” depending on where you are coming from.

    You state:
    “Would anyone say that either party speaks to a large percentage of Americans or, would it be safe to say that each party speaks more to smaller factions and special interests while the huge majority of us feel like poor wayfaring strangers?”

    Who is this “rest of us”? You speak like there is this large majority of people that essentialy agree on how to run the country, but the politicians aren’t listening to us. While the reality there is no “rest of us”, but instead there are numerous factions and politicians have no choice but to try to appeal to as wide of constituency as possible as long as they hope to win.


    5 Mar 08 at 11:11 AM

  4. Thank you Roman for your comment that “there is so much dumbness in this post I don’t know where to begin” because it certainly allows me to say that you are not a critical thinker or a worthy adversary. You see, Roman, to be considered that you would have had to let the comment above out of the discussion. Calling someone stupid, illiterate, or even a bit crazed doesn’t really add much to the discussion although it may be personally satisfying for a few moments; therefore, I always refrain.

    Gloria Ferris`

    5 Mar 08 at 3:17 PM

  5. “I hope that each and every one of you voted today for someone that you believed in and not because you thought that that person would lose in November.”

    this communist zombie understands your point that it has nothing to do with republicans/democrats, but being honest with your vote.


    5 Mar 08 at 6:21 PM

  6. Gloria,

    I’ve spoken to a lot of folks, A LOT, that have done that very thing. Changed to Dem to vote for Hillary because there’s a much better chance of McCain beating her than Obama. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it ethical? Who’s to say? Obviously, it’s permitted. One can vote for whomever they would like, they can choose party affiliation or change it however many times they like. I will admit to doing such a thing in a local race because of the way an individual corraled votes, and did favors so that folks would vote for her. She was a complete waste as a public representative and her only reason for running for one more term was so she could receive some sort of public retirement assistance for having served for the minimum 10 years or so. In my eyes, she milked the system. She contributed nothing, and was and still is completely out of touch with her constituency and with the state of things in general. Was I wrong? I don’t think so. There were more folks more deserving and much more capable of helping the city than she could ever dream to be.

    As far as Rush’s involvement in the situation is concerned, I listen to him if I’m driving when he’s on, but never heard him advocate such a thing. I’m not saying he didn’t, just that I never heard him promote that plan.

    But that is the big question now, isn’t it? Is voting ‘against’ someone as acceptable as voting ‘for’someone? We talked about such a thing in Lorain a few years back, as Republican Craig Foltin was elected to Mayor, not so much was he voted “FOR” as much as, some of us believe, his opponent was voted “AGAINST.”

    Makes one think, doesn’t it?


    5 Mar 08 at 7:05 PM

  7. My points still stand Gloria.


    6 Mar 08 at 1:25 PM

  8. And for what it’s worth, Gloria, I saw an article about this in Wednesday’s Plain Dealer, so it seems it does happen, more often than people want to think.


    6 Mar 08 at 5:20 PM

  9. The alternative is to not allow voters to switch parties as they desire.

    Infinitely worse than a few “switchers” trying to manipulate the vote.


    6 Mar 08 at 10:13 PM

  10. I never advocating not allowing people to switch parties. In fact, I believe I said that IF the reason for switching was a change in philosophy then do it. My question remains is it worthy of any voter to switch parties so that the outcome is more advantageous to the REAL candidate or REAL cause that they promote? All I was asking that people search their hearts and make sure that the reason they were switching parties was a GOOD reason for themselves because after all it is your own conscious that should be your guide.

    I am glad that the self-professed” communist zombie” got my point because she is my daughter.


    8 Mar 08 at 2:14 PM

  11. Gloria, being a “true independent” …. whatever that is 🙂 I too got your point, I don’t think I would class my self as on the fringe ( more in the mix) or
    ” a reactionary KKK member or a communist zombie”.. but then I am no good at games

    Loraine Ritchey

    9 Mar 08 at 8:40 AM

  12. he original struggle with becoming a Democrat … just so I could vote in the primary … can be found here Loraine

    Loraine Ritchey

    9 Mar 08 at 8:44 AM

  13. Gloria:

    I have no problem with switching parties…truly.

    What I have a problem with was making the effort to vote AGAINST someone. Rather than focusing on what we don’t like, it would be wonderful if we could identify what we are for.

    What was done by these voters was dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative…more importantly, it will not bring about the best scenerio for everyone.

    I can (and will) not expend my votes against a person; I will not vote for someone I don’t support. Frankly, I am concerned that I won’t have a vote to cast in the next presidential election. There is a female candidate, a hawk, for whom, in good conscience, I cannot vote.



    13 Mar 08 at 7:56 PM

Leave a Reply