I sometimes get a little thrill up my leg, even, as he breaks down some issue with his preternatural insight. And yet, when he writes this:
Rest assured that were I not in California, where the Republican ticket will struggle to break 40%, I would not be casting a protest vote of any sort. My vote for Bobby Jindal for President is intended as a protest to two entities: the McCain campaign, which has done a terrible job, and the national Republican party, which has done a terrible job of its own unrelated to the McCain campaign. That said, I don’t value my protest so much that I would knowingly contribute to Barack Obama’s margin of victory — so, make no mistake, were I in Nevada, Virginia, Indiana, or any other contested state, I would vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.I wish he would read this:
When my girlfriend shows up for a date dressed in a particularly awful outfit, I don't say anything. I just hope for the best. At that point in the evening, I don't see any other viable options.Or perhaps, if I could summon the temerity, this:
The election process is about more than just who wins. Sure, the winner is important, but there are other factors that have an impact on the behavior of government. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that one of the two major parties, or one of the two main contenders in a primary, will win the election. Why vote for someone else?That piece was written in the context of third party candidates, but the logic applies here to urge the very course of action Josh has taken. Bobby Jindal, or some other True Conservative, fulfills the role of the third party for Treviño in this election. Apparently he finds persuasive the same reasoning needed to tilt against the two-party windmill.
I can understand it, on an intellectual level, but I suppose I'd have to live in California to really get it.
Sphere: Related Content