No Loss for Words

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.

I was listening to the radio this morning and during a segment of the news, they were talking about John Edwards.  He has been hounded for a couple years about an extramarital affair he was alleged to be having.  Of course, he assured us that there was no truth to the allegations.

 He campaigned this past year for president with his wife at his side on many occasions.  He talked about being a family man with kids at home and how much they mean to him.  He continuously denied the rumors.

Recently, the National Enquirer reported that the woman Edwards was alleged to be having the affair with had a baby.  That sparked new interest in Edwards’ continuing relationship with the woman and the prospects that she had his “love child”.

Of course, he said that it wasn’t true.  Then when reports were confirmed that Edwards had been caught leaving a hotel room that woman was registered in, he knew he had been caught “with his pants down” so to speak.  He decided to come clean and admit his affair.

Personally, I don’t care whether John Edwards cheats on his wife or not.  I am trying to figure out whether he admitted to having a short term love affair with a woman he now says he doesn’t/didn’t love.  I guess it was just about the sex.  Or did he admit to having a continuing affair that has been ongoing for more than two years.  I thought the news account said he was recently observed leaving the woman’s hotel room.

Even though the details won’t affect my opinion of the man any more than the general story already has, I am intrigued with the current spin.  The admission that Edwards had demonstrated a lack of good judgment two years ago is not the same as a two year affair that continues today.

The wife admits that she knew about the affair two years ago.  Was she aware that it was ongoing?  How could she be treated that way and still stand by her man?

Does this story sound familiar?  Sadly it does.

I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton and John Edwards are the only serial cheaters out there.  I think in the circles those guys run in, that is more the norm than the exception.

What I have learned in my brief political experience is this.  Regardless of your profession, the elite top performers in any field have “super star egos” that are black holes for attention.  They need for people to pay attention to their needs, their whims, their opinions.

I know there are some down to earth regular folks that are successful and don’t let their success go to their heads.  My experience is that every politician, actor, musician, you name it, at the top of their game have people around them handling their needs because the public relations people constantly tell these “stars” that they are so great.  Before too long, anyone in that position might begin to believe the hype. 

Sports stars and actors are the most visible examples of this treatment.  In most cases these folks with one endearing quality suddenly find that quality in demand.  It starts in high school for jocks.  The ones with gifted athletic ability are given special treatment from an early age.  Is it any wonder that when they get older, they expect special treatment? 

Politicians elected by increasingly larger constituencies tend to equate their ability to sway voters as acknowledgment that they are pretty special people.  Just think about the people you know in sports or government.  How many of them have big egos? 

In government, it takes a big ego to do the work.  The responsibilities are enormous.  How could any person think they could do the job if they didn’t have that ego?

Certainly that is no excuse for their boorish behavior; it just seems to be the way it is.

For the most part, celebrities have that attitude that they are better than non celebrities.  Somehow, they think that the very people that hold them in such high esteem are beneath them.  What’s wrong with that picture?

If it weren’t for the fact that Edwards was running for President of the United States, I wouldn’t care a lick about him.  He can cheat on his wife all he wants. 

I expect better character from my presidential candidates.  And I don’t care which party they come from.  Left wingers don’t have a corner on the market.

The dilemma we face with public figures in general and political figures specifically is “What part of a candidate’s character matters when we are selecting our leaders?  Is the fact that a person cheats a character flaw or is the lying about it the character flaw?”

If all we have to gauge a person’s fitness to serve in public office is their words and deeds, what are we to do when both the words and deeds are pure deception?

The radio news person was interviewing people on the street for their opinions.  I think a majority of the responses I heard supported Edwards and the fact that what he does in his private life are his business.

My last question would be “What measure do we use for a political candidate if character doesn’t matter?”