I Will Not Settle: Why I am Not Voting For Whitman or Fiorina

I’ve been taking some flack from several conservative friends lately. Thus, maybe it’s time I clear up what must be so muddy about that “Independent” part of my “Independent Conservative” political label: I subscribe to no one’s “party.”

The crux of the latest issue with my fellow conservatives is that I have stated plainly and up-front: I will not vote for Carly Fiorina, nor will I vote for Meg Whitman.

I live in Silicon Valley, and have been well aware of both women long before campaign season, and long before either announced their candidacy. What I have seen and heard underwhelms me, and leaves me unenthusiastic.

Ms. Fiorina, despite how I feel about her leadership choices at HP (and you can color me “unhappy” with them), and what I believe to be her stands on some key issues (outsourcing jobs, for one), has still failed to impress me with her stance on life. She can state that she is pro-life, as can I. I can also state I am the Queen of England. But I have no birth certificate to show proof of any royal lineage to British aristocracy. In similar fashion, Ms. Fiorina has little to show on-record (where it matters) that she also holds an absolute pro-life view. I have been emphatic that I will not vote for a candidate that does not clearly espouse life, or can demonstrate it via their record. Thus, openly pro-choice Meg Whitman was never even on my radar, for that reason.

But, for me, this is a deeper issue than “just” abortion, although, for me, that alone is enough. It is indicative of a deeper and more pervasive issue: “Settling.” I am bone-tired of hearing we have to “settle” for Carly Fiorina because she is “the lesser of two evils.” Really? Why would I want to vote for even one “evil” albeit the “lesser” one?

I live in a Blue state. I know this. You know this. I don’t think this is a newsflash that will take anyone by surprise. Thus, change will come slowly. It may not be wrapped up with a pretty bow and delivered to my doorstep post-election, on November 3rd.

I am choosing to focus on long-term change. I am choosing to look at the bigger picture. I am absolutely sick and tired of people I vote for turning “Stepford” on me once my vote sends them to Washington or Sacramento (one word: Ahnuld). They promise me the moon, all with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” understanding that it’s “just politics.” It’s not just politics. It’s my life. It affects my family, my children, everything. I believe in a little word called accountability! Why would I say a candidate must be held accountable or else I will “vote them out” and then elect someone just like them? How is that any incentive to change the behavior I abhor? Politicians are currently running scared — and some have chosen not to run again, at all — for this very reason! We have them on the ropes, and can send a very strong, clear message! But, in order to do so, we cannot “settle.”

Yes, we have to take baby steps. But I am not marrying myself to a candidate for two, four, or more years, unless I have conviction that they will represent me as they said they would. Two words: Scott Brown.

Think of it in this way: If the person of your dreams proposed, and you sat talking about your vision of your future together and it was all glossy and rosy and beautiful….but you knew that the minute the ring was on your finger they would change into someone you never knew…who was unfaithful, who was not truthful, who just told you what you wanted to hear…would you marry that person? So, why is that acceptable to do that with candidates? Especially when we have the power to change things?

We have a problem people! This is why the Tea Party is such a huge paradigm shift in American politics today. Abraham Lincoln coined the expression “of the people, by the people, for the people” in his seminal Gettysburg Address. That’s the “hope” and “change” I am banking on. Not some fly-by-night candidate with the “right” letter behind their name on a ballot. It goes back to Dr. King’s statement about “content of character.” I am looking down the road. I am looking forward, not backward, and not really even at the present, though there are some candidates in the “here and now” who espouse what I am talking about: Allen West, Star Parker, Jim DeMint.

I am talking about taking this paradigm shift, and running with it. Fixing the political machine to work as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Settling? That was for land, not people! We are taking action! We are making our voices, our wishes, our wants and our concerns known! I want a say in crafting that! I want a part in backing candidates who are “regular people” who will faithfully represent the will of the people. Not someone who takes my money, kisses my baby, and then follows a prescribed political dance.

So with all due respect to Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, and with kudos to breaking that glass ceiling, I envision another type of leader. And it’s not “pie in the sky” either. There are some folks out there who are tired of the “typical Washington politics.” Tired enough to “vote the bums out” (though I don’t like that disparaging remark), and tired enough to choose to serve by running for office themselves.

Whatever happens this November here in CA, I am committed to looking for real, true, long-term change. I’m tired of being seduced by rhetoric and waking up next to the “same old, same old.” Aren’t you? It does have to start somewhere. But for me that “somewhere” isn’t “settling” or voting for “lesser.” It starts by holding my leaders accountable, and saying that my vote is no longer going to just anyone. I can be a thermometer, or a thermostat. Being a thermostat takes longer, but it yields the greatest change and is worth working diligently for.

They say the definition of insanity is, “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.” Well, to quote Susan Powter, “Stop the insanity!”

Image credit

About Marie Stroughter 51 Articles
The traditional bio for Marie Stroughter would be: “Loving wife to hubby of over 20 years, and homeschooling mom to three adorable kids (and one spunky cat!).” Getting a little bolder would be to say that she is an adoptive mom of two, and a freelance writer and copyeditor. Unique factoids might include: social media addict….uh, maven, avid knitter and Founding Mama of her local knitting Guild, and a devotee of all things gadgety. The rabble-rousing version would read: “Marie Stroughter is the activist mom turned co-founder of African-American Conservatives, and, the opinionated, no-holds-barred host of the African-American Conservatives radio show carried on Blog Talk Radio, and, From The Right Radio where she chats weekly with political movers and shakers like Karl Rove, Steve Forbes, Michelle Malkin, Star Parker, Newt Gingrich, Senator Jim DeMint, and other conservative all-stars and rising stars in addition to her contributor status with Breitbart.com and the iVillage #iVoices and iVote projects.” But the latter would be a run-on sentence, so we’ll stick with the others. [wink]
Join the discussion!

Thank you for what you had to say about meg whitman, and forina. They were both bad candidates. I voted for Swartzenhiemer at first but I did not vote for him the second time; neither would I ever vote for Swartzenfifer ever again. I think Whitsan is just a Swartzenduffer in a dress, and Purina was just another Elite Globalist Repub with constant Outsourcing of American jobs. She was completely unconcerned about America or American Citizens. Also Whitan & foruna were both Very Illegal Alien Friendly. They both opposed SB1070 so that let me know they were both horrible.

However, NOT voting at all or NOT voting for an “R” is the same as voting FOR a “D”. I understand your philosophical aversion, however, it would seem to me that you would be willing to do about anything to get those Brown and Boxer from doing anymore damage. Sure the two that would replace them are certainly not perfect but you don’t have a prefect candidate right now. Whitman and Fiorina are are step in the right direction and think of them as placeholders until someone better comes along. Imagine how much more damage Brown and Boxer can inflict until the next election. In some states we have to start with baby steps in our quest take back the country from the progressives. Scott Brown was a step in the right direction and proved that an “R” could be elected in a blue state. Even though he is a RINO, he is better than what was being offered. He, hopefully, has paved the way for someone better next time. This election is too important to not vote for an “R”, even an imperfect one as opposed to sitting it out or voting for what you already have.

Nice ideas, but if you don’t vote for Meg and Carly, you are just helping to elect Brown and Boxer; 3rd party candidates do nothing but draw the vote away from others, and in this case, from the more conservative of the two choices. Please get real.

This is real. We are on the verge of something bigger. Partisan politics and voting for the candidate with the R just for the sake of an R, is wrong. I am willing to invest the time into cultivating the candidates that will represent me well. They are out there. Candidates need to see we are serious. If Whitman & Fiorina are the same as Brown & Boxer, how is it any better? I think I am being very “real.” I want “real” change. I want “real” accountability. And, I am willing to wait for it. Voting a “party line” has given us what we have….and I don’t like what we have. So rather than resort to insults, I am voting responsibly.

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.