As we enter into the final phase of this election season, the voters can hardly wait until the campaigning is done. Most citizens are not knowledgeable enough about a state budget to know whether Dino or Christine knows best, all we know is the ads never stop. This year has been extra long since the presidential campaigns started last year. Who knows who is telling the truth in the campaigns? I don’t think most of us care anymore.
Political campaigns are all about getting your candidate elected. We have become desensitized to the words used in the ads because we know they don’t really mean anything. Political campaigns are not about facts and ideas. We all know politicians that sit in our living rooms and tell us one thing and then turn around in their elected job and do just the opposite. The only ideas they seem to have are about how to twist the facts.
When Joe Biden was running against Barack Obama, he said some pretty negative things about Obama. When Hillary Clinton was running against Barack Obama, she said some pretty negative things about Obama. If you were a Democrat trying to figure out who to support for President, you heard some scathing criticisms of Obama from generally credible leaders. We look to our credible leaders for guidance.
Then when it was clear that Obama was the Party nominee, all those criticisms were retracted. Were they mistaken before when they were comparing themselves to Obama? “You should vote for me because I am for this and Barack Obama is not.” “I have experience with this and Barack Obama does not.” “I am qualified to lead this country and Barack Obama is not.” Which is it, “I was mistaken before when I characterized him as being unfit for the job.” or am I mistaken now for flip-flopping and telling you “he is the absolutely best qualified person for the job.”?
Politics allows two or more people to perpetrate vicious acts upon one another one day and invite the same people over to the house the next day for a barbecue without regard for the rhetoric. How are citizens supposed to understand the messages contained in that behavior? Either a guy is qualified or he is not…. Except in politics?
We have elected presidents with varied levels of experience. All of them managed to muddle through. Certainly some did it better than others. It is clear that no person can be absolutely prepared for the job of President of the United States prior to being elected to the job. There is no training program. We narrow the field of “big egos” by looking at previous voting records accomplishments in office, personal statements and who supports them currently.
What I look for in candidates is experience, character and ideas.
Even though he supports conservative issues, John McCain has a record of pitching ideas that are frequently not consistent with his Party Caucus. He has shown a willingness to look at ideas that serve a cause first and their origin second. Sometimes the good ideas come from his own party and at other times they come from the other party. In his speech at the Republican Convention, he talked about good ideas on both sides of the aisle and how important the ideas are and not who gets credit for the ideas. That was important to me.
Partisan ownership of ideas seems to be the stumbling block in politics and government today. “If it didn’t originate in our caucus, it is totally unacceptable!”
Presidential elections are about shared values and visions rather than specifics. Voters look for a candidate that they think will deliver on their specific needs without actually articulating what those needs might be. Voters listen to the ads, the debates, the pundits and the candidates looking for that common ground on their issues. When the time to vote comes, they will be selecting the candidate that they feel is most consistent with their vision for the future. After the election we hope for specific ideas that will get us the vision.
Each president inherits the leftovers of the previous administration. Those leftovers shape the actions of the new president.
Circumstances are different for every president and they shape the decisions that become a record of accomplishment or failure. When the Congress is controlled by one party and the President is of the same party, the dynamics between them are different than when they are different. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Bill Clinton’s strategy had to change just as George W Bush had to adjust when the Democrats reclaimed control in 2006. Jimmy Carter was unable to act decisively even though he had a Democratic Congress that Ronald Reagan was able to work with.
If you are for bigger government, vote for the Democrat. If you are for smaller government, vote for the Republican. Even though Bush has “gone off into the ditch” with government spending for the military and security issues, Republican philosophy at most levels of government champion the “less is more” ideal.
We have to choose who our President will be from the two choices, but we can apply the general rule of thumb. D’s are for bigger government and R’s are for smaller government.
Obama is for bigger government and McCain is for smaller government. Beyond that it is all political posturing.
After the election the players that lose will still have their old jobs and the winner will invite them to the White House for a barbecue and all will be forgiven. Hey, nothing personal.
No Loss for Words 
Deal or No Deal
by Steve DanaThe bail out plan didn’t pass in the House of Representatives on Monday. The votes cast were bi-partisan in that both Democrats and Republicans voted “aye” in support of the legislation. At the same time, both Democrats and Republicans voted “nay” as well.
In the newspaper it said that the House Democrats had a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with the House Republicans that the R’s would deliver 100 yes votes. The D’s wanted to make sure that the blame would be shared by both parties if the deal turned out to be a bad deal. I don’t disagree with them. Since the R’s failed to deliver the 100 yes votes, the D’s are blaming the R’s for the bill going down.
The majority party in both houses of the Congress is Democratic. They had the votes in their own party caucus to pass the legislation, if the rank and file members thought it was the best they could do, but they couldn’t convince their own members this was the best deal possible. The vote failed, the government is in crisis.
I doubt that anyone is wildly excited about the details in the failed legislation. Everyone is counting on the smart guys coming up with the best deal possible before the whole thing crashes. My question to all the folks who voted no is this. “If you were not comfortable with the deal on the table, what specific changes would make you happy?”
The President, the Treasury Secretary and all the Congressional leadership folks spent a lot of time putting this deal together. That means both D’s and R’s were at the table offering their two cents worth. So what is so bad about this deal?
Apparently, the telephone calls to the elected officials are heavily opposing the deal. That means the voters are pressuring their Representative to vote one way and their party leaders are pressuring them to vote the other. Isn’t that a conundrum for the politicians?
I still want to hear specifics from the elected officials on both sides if this issue. If they liked the deal, what parts did they like? If they didn’t like the deal, what parts didn’t they like? Eventually, these characters are going to have to step up and offer their own ideas, aren’t they? Maybe we should wonder why we voted for any of them if they can’t tell us specifics. The solution for this crisis will be painful for us citizens. I am not interested in letting any of these yahoos off the hook. I want specifics.
If they voted “yea” or “nay”, they should be required to defend their vote. I want to hear it from both sides! Don’t you all want to as well?
Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »