Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Sharon:

  Run.

                                   Atlant

    Well, that's the obvious answer, but I can't run for everything
    at once, can I?

    What I'm more interested in hearing about is the 'strategies' of
    other "litmus test voters": how do you go about "cutting your
    losses" in the voting booth when faced with a situation like this
    (what your particular litmus test is doesn't matter), and, as more
    of a long term solution, how does one go about scaring up people
    who are willing to run for these positions in the first place?
    I mean, this is the PRIMARY.  This is the *place* for real
    duplicity of the ideas.  Instead, there seems to be a surprising
    allegiance to the national "party line".  It's at this level that
    things need to change if we're ever going to see change in the sort
    of candidates that make it to the general election.

	Sharon

    re .2 Sorry, Sharon, you can't change it from the top down.
    The upper levels will change when they see their lower-level
    clones getting *beaten*. As long as the formula works, it
    won't be changed. Get some alternatives at the state and
    even local levels and make sure they win. Then the old boys 
    upstairs might wake up and smell the concrete :-) 

    I'm a NH resident, consider myself a feminist, and in all honesty
    cannot simply consider abortion as the "litmus test" of ANY candidate. 
    There are other equally important things. I also am neither Pro-life
    nor Pro-choice, as they are conventionally defined.  Those two labels
    are too black and white for me.  I don't think women should be making
    the decision to have abortions as handily as they appear to be doing. 
    Neither do I think the government should be the one to prevent
    abortions.  To me abortion is immoral.  I know that my thinking on this
    issue is a direct result of experiencing the births of my four
    children.  This is simple my feelings on this.
    
    As for candidates in NH, you have to base your vote on overall
    positioning of the candidates who rum.  That's all you can do.
    
    For what it's worth, I believe it would be extremely difficult to
    obtain an abortion in NH anyway.  Many of the towns and cities have
    statutes governing this.  Even though it's legal, my OB at one point in
    time while discussing a pregnancy and possible birth defects mentioned
    this to me.
    

.3>  [...] it's obvious that some combination of the
.3>  following statements is true:
.3>
.3>    o Feminisim/Pro-Choice/Social Progressivism doesn't exist in NH
.3>
.3>    o Feminists/Pro-Choicers/Social Progressives don't vote in NH
.3>
.3>
.3>  Please, don't anyone bother to flame me, the vote speaks for itself.

    No flames here; I've often had the same thought myself.  Actually,
    I think they DO vote... just not in the Republican primary (myself
    aside, I guess).  And, as we know, the odds are stacked HEAVILY 
    against a Democrat winning a NH general election.  But until there 
    are appropriate choices on the Republican side (with support from 
    both those who vote pro-choice and those who vote their pocketbooks), 
    they're not going to be able to defeat the ultra-conservatives.  So 
    we have this polarization of ultra-right vs. ultra-left.  

    Just look at the NH governor's race from 1988, or the one slated for 
    this year.  Based on the lineup, I will predict that Judd Gregg 
    (incumbent conservative Republican who has a record of vetoing 
    pro-choice legislation) will win in a landslide over Joseph 
    Grandmaison (socially progressive Democrat who favors the institution 
    of new taxes, including a politically suicidal state income tax).  
    And, based on this, we'll get more Judd-Gregg-alikes running in the 
    next Republican primary, and winning in more landslides against more 
    liberal Democrats.  But, in most races there isn't anything else ON 
    EITHER SIDE in the primaries and I am left with the knowledge that my 
    single vote (if I even bother to cast it in that race) is going to 
    perpetuate the status quo no matter what I do... because the right 
    kind of candidate just isn't there.

    I'm voting for Grandmaison in the next election, although heaven
    knows we don't have much (anything?) in common politically besides
    being pro-choice (and on several issues we're in violent disagreement
    -- not always about what's best for NH, but inevitably about what's
    best for Sharon Walker, NH resident, who is who I vote for when I
    go to the polls.  But if I have to pay a 7% choice tax, I will).  
    I'm even considering campaigning for him.

.4>    re .2 Sorry, Sharon, you can't change it from the top down.
.4>    The upper levels will change when they see their lower-level
.4>    clones getting *beaten*.

    How was I proposing changing it from the top down?  I agree with
    you, actually.  And in any way I can contribute to the clones
    being beaten, I will.  But how can they get beaten when there is,
    literally, NO ALTERNATIVE?  *That's* the problem!

	Sharon

>    I'm a NH resident, consider myself a feminist, and in all honesty
>    cannot simply consider abortion as the "litmus test" of ANY candidate. 
>    There are other equally important things. 

	Do you have to be one or the other?  No, of course not.  It's
	just that some of us don't feel that those other things are
	equally important, just as many gun collectors feel that their
	right to their hobby is more important than, say, catastrophic
	health care or public kindergarten.

	If you don't vote for yourself, no one else is going to do it
	for you.

	    Sharon