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
What’s It Gonna Be, D or R?
by Steve DanaAs 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.
Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 4 Comments »