corrente

From a classic post by the ever-essential Orcinus way back in 2003. The post is prescient (or, if you prefer, prophetic):

I remember rather vividly, like the day JFK was shot, where I was and what I was doing, the evening [Bush v. Gore] came down. I was in a small harbor town in western Washington, staying with the parents of some close friends (who are themselves good friends) while I covered a manslaughter trial in a nearby town. He is an accountant, she a homemaker, good moderate churchgoing Democrats. We all sat together and watched the bulletins come over the newscasts (I think we were tuned to MSNBC).

And I remember she turned to me and said: "I feel sad. Because I can't vote a mixed ticket anymore." He nodded.

So did I. I knew exactly what she meant.

It is, frankly, foolishness at this point in time to even vote for a Republican. Not because the party lacks candidates who are utterly unworthy of support; there are, indeed, smart, thoughtful and honest Republicans even still, though they are harder to come by. But even they represent, and remain an integral part of, a party that has become nearly absolutely corrupted by its near-absolute power, and almost permanently tainted by its lust for utter control of the political and social landscape.

I decided then that, for the foreseeable future, I could not cast my vote for any Republican on any ballot.

Ultimately, all politics is personal, and human nature being what it is, there was a measure of mistrust of all conservatives that came with this assessment. What I observed over time was that none of my conservative friends would seriously defend Bush v. Gore but would switch subjects or revert to a "get over it" kind of response.

And so the feeling grew on my part that they neither were being honest nor being, at base, civil in its core sense. Maybe I was wrong to feel this way, I don't know; but I felt it. I tried not to let it show, but it was there. And it was a wedge in our friendships.

What seems to have really ripped things apart, though, was the aftermath of September 11. And this came down not so much to my feelings, but to theirs.

It is in the last of these failures -- painting dissent as treason -- that the president, his administration and the accompanying pundits (or rather, the choir of sycophants) all have affected us all personally, and badly. Because that view has become the worldview of mainstream conservatives in all walks of life.

Most of all, the prevalence of the "dissent is treason" meme has affected how ordinary people relate to each other, in profoundly negative ways.

But I no longer much trust in the moral strength of my conservative friends. Whereas once I believed that the basic decency of average, mainstream conservatives was more than an adequate bulwark against the possibility of right-wing fascism from ever manifesting itself, I have been forced to conclude that, when swept along by the combination of a movement and the fearmongering of public officials, they are as susceptible to doing the wrong thing as their ancestors were in 1942, when they shipped off 110,000 Japanese Americans to concentration camps.

It grieves me to see old friendships and relationships actually damaged by this war. But it was not a fight I or other liberals chose. It was thrust upon us. And until that aggression comes to a stop, I will not stop fighting back. Civilly, of course, but with all the blunt force and passion I can muster.

Because, yes, it is political -- but it's also become personal.

Now, many Pennsylvania Democrats haven't learned this hard lesson. And many of them voted a split ticket for Kerry and also for the "moderate" Spector (not Hoeffel). Well, Rove left his usual calling card—a horse's head in the bed—for Spector, and Spector caved. So long Roe v. Wade! Welcome, two, three, many Bush v Gore! The shameful, shabby sequence of events:

Last week, Specter told reporters that "judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)" probably would face problems in the Senate.

Specter said Bush has had trouble getting some of his nominees through the Senate because of Democratic filibusters. He added: "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

Filibusters, a bill-killing tactic of unlimited debate, remain possible in the Senate elected last week because the Republicans' 55-45 majority falls five votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate.

Specter's comments on the question came a day after he won re-election in Pennsylvania in a tight race in which the president campaigned for him. The remarks outraged conservative groups such as Concerned Women for America, which sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to prevent Specter from taking the chairmanship.

Specter backtracked the next day, saying he wasn't warning Bush not to make those kinds of choices. His meaning, Specter said, was that "in light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters."
(via AP

Spector, you see, does not understand the way we live now: In a one party state, where all checks and balances have been swept away in the service of unchecked executive power.

Split ticket voters, it's a hard lesson—one that I hope has not been learned too late.