100 Miles of Nowhere on Saturday – Info here.
So, I watched the big debate last night. I thought that it was well executed – the moderators did a good job (nothing ruins a debate faster than lousy mods) and the stage was well-laid out. (The Reagan library is really great looking but I’m thinking it’s about time we quit building these monuments – enough already. The plane is kinda overkill.)
In reference to the performance of the different candidates, I thought that it was relatively predictable. Romney and Perry hashed it out between them and everyone else threw rocks from the perimeter. At the end of the day, everyone but Perry and Romney faded. Bachman and Huntsman tried to interject themselves several times but ultimately couldn’t wedge in. The rest were not even really of note.
On the “big two” I would say this: Romney still seems plastic-y to me. I get the feeling that he’s really got no code. Many times leaders have to face problems where the best solution for the problem isn’t very popular. Sometimes you have to swallow hard and implement the tough solution. I don’t think Mr. Romney would have the fortitude to do that. The guy has been running for office for about 4 years and just doesn’t connect with me. Who’s brilliant idea was it to realease a 59 point plan? Really? Only 59 points? Why not 70 or 80? Who is going to read that ridiculous thing? 5 points, Mitt, 5.
Gov. Perry did not perform, in my view, as expected. I thought that he would really dominate the stage and that just didn’t happen. I didn’t expect him to bully or bluster but I did expect that he would have more of a presence. When someone owns the stage, they just own it. That wasn’t there. It was his first outing so maybe it’s to do with that. I do believe his rhetoric was really wild. It’s one thing for a candidate for office to wave his arms and screech about how the system is broken but this guy’s running for president and his choice of words about Social Security – “ponzi scheme” “monstrous lie” – were not useful. As we have seen, serious problems require serious minds – not wild rhetoric. Wild rhetoric in public policy is too often used as a substitute for actual solutions (this is where Bachman loses me) and it scares people. People are already scared stiff and things are going to hell. Knock it off and start presenting yourself as a serious candidate.
I think it’s early to draw solid conclusions but, as a republican, I didn’t see much to like. The goal, after all, is to defeat Mr. Obama. To do that, we’ll need someone who has some credibility in the middle of the political spectrum. I didn’t see a credible candidate who can draw from the middle last night. Paging Mr. Christie, Paging Mr. Christie…..
September 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm
NO DOUBT…we need MR..or Governor…Christie in the worst way…LOVE that man! Kicking butt and taking names!
September 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm
WSGFN, What is it that you most love about Gov. Christie and why do you believe he would make a good president?
September 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm
As you know, I’m an independent. (Sidenote: a pet peeve of mine is when people write “Independent.” “Independent” refers to someone being a member of the American Independence Party, a right-wing third party, while “independent” refers to someone who has no political party affiliation whatsoever. My 12th Grade American Government teacher Jack Yankee taught me that.)
Anyway, I agree with your “I didn’t see a credible candidate who can draw from the middle last night” statement. Frankly most Republican candidates to me seem to pandering to the far-right, the Tea Partiers and such, which their “rhetoric” as you call it. Same for the Democrats, they all seem to be pandering to the far-left. There’s no good middle candidate that I can see. Overall, I admit that I kinda slanted towards the right overall in my beliefs, though my beliefs are a good mixture of what would be called either “conservative” or “liberal” depending of what you’re asking about, but again I think slightly slanted towards the right so I’m not opposed to voting Republican- but not for a super right-wing Tea Party Republican. I find Tea Party views unrealistic and in some cases even “backwards” so to speak. (One of my favorite sayings on the matter is “I’m a descendent of one of the real Tea Partiers and these guys today aren’t his Tea Partiers.”) I know that’s a broad statement but I’m not going to go into it more. That being said, I won’t vote to reelect Obama either. He’s a typical “say one thing to get elected, do something else once elected” politician- the kind of politician I hate the most. He also strikes me as being all talk, no real leadership- both of those things are something seemingly common in politicians these days unfortunately, especially the ones in DC. To tell you the truth, I probably won’t vote for either mainstream candidate. Instead, I’ll be writing in Stephen Colbert President/ Jon Stewart Vice President in 2012!
September 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Andrew,
If you are kind of slanted to the right but are not Tea Party, why not go with Huntsman or Romney? Not challenging you just trying to understand the reasoning. If you are looking for true purity, then you are likely to never vote for any candidate for the rest of your life. (Colbert-Stewart, really?)
September 9, 2011 at 10:00 am
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/297956
Three cheers for the Roanoke City Council!
September 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm
FYI -A memo today from Mayor Parrish:
There will a clergy-led Interfaith Service to commemorate
the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 on Sunday, September 11,2011
at 1:30 p.m. at the Harris Pavilion. The service is expected to last
for approximately 30 minutes.
Everyone is welcome.
September 11, 2011 at 2:44 am
Rich, you want my thinking? OK, here goes (I’d get a snack, we’ll be here awhile):
The thing to remember about me is that I’m an independent. My beliefs vary between “conservative” and “liberal” and they do not guarantee loyalty to a party in any way. In fact, it’s more of a gut feeling when I call myself “slightly ‘conservative’” or another similar phrase since I’ve never listed out all my beliefs on paper and labeled them one way or the other. If I did, I might actually find that I’m more “liberal.” Of course “conservative” and “liberal” are socially constructed terms whose meaning as varied in time. The thing to remember is that what was once ”liberal” is now “conservative” and vise versa. A good example of this is how I’ve heard Abe Lincoln would likely be a Democrat today given how the beliefs of the parties have changed over time. So I see no reason why a person should wed their voting habits to a certain party based on his or her personal beliefs. People ought to vote for the candidate that best reflects what they believe in regards on whatever party that candidate belongs to.
Now, the reality is the Republican or Democrat will win the election since only a few vote for a third party. This is bad in my opinion since these days it feels more-and-more like only candidates on the far-left or far-right win the primaries which of course determines who goes on the general elections and third parties just aren’t organized enough to be real competition. The Tea Partiers aren’t helping, their seemingly just making the Republicans more extreme in their views and unwilling to compromise and the forces on the left are going the same to the Democrats. Truly moderate, willing to compromise, candidates are few and far between since to the win primaries, you have to appease your party first and that typically means accepting the party’s views- at least if you want to win. Personally, I wish the major parties were more accepting of a variety of viewpoints were say one could be Republican and anti-gun or pro-abortion but be “conservative” enough in their overall beliefs to be accepted as a Republican or the vise versa in the case of a Democrat. However, that doesn’t really seem to be the case, especially at the national level, where it seems those closest to the “party line” get the most votes. This is I why decided long ago to be an independent and why I’m taking it further to writing-in candidates rather just accepting what’s on the ballot. It may indeed mean I’ll rarely vote for a mainstream candidate in my life given what we’re seeing in politics today, but I’ll have my principles. I’m not looking a perfect mirror image of myself, just someone doesn’t pander to extremes, generally has beliefs like mine, and is willing to truly listen to and truly compromise with the other side, and it doesn’t matter which party he or she belongs to.
On that, don’t get me started on Romney. Romney changes his positions each election cycle (compare his stances when he was running for Gov. of Mass to now) and is actually an example of someone trying to appease the party to try to get elected, plus I really don’t like how he signed that “tax pledge”- do you realize how much chance for compromise that kills if the signers stick to it? Huntsman is better and more middle-of-the-road and strikes me as generally more in-line with my views but I doubt he’ll get the nomination (which I didn’t mention him in my first post) since he apparently is a “Republican in name only” and isn’t a “conservative”- both actual comments I’ve read online about him. That fact also confirms anything I’ve wrote- you have to pander to extremes to win a primary- you can’t be really moderate anymore to win.
As for voting for Colbert/ Stewart there’s actually a deep reason behind that. Colbert is actually more moderate then he is on the show, remember there’s Colbert the actor and Colbert the character. As side from that it’s symbolism: it would be a mixed “conservative” and “liberal” ticket. (Also since one of the two mainstream candidates’ are going to win anyway and I probably won’t like either or them, why have not a little fun?) Why it’s a revolutionary idea isn’t it? I’ll be shorter since I found a good link on why it would be a good idea- as well why we’ll never probably see it. But imagine a candidate who is so willing to show he is listening to and willing to compromised with the other party, he or she chooses a member of a rival party to be his or her running mate. Imagine, just to keep things current, an Obama/Palin ticket. Imagine the reaction the parties and the press would have if Obama and Plain came out and said “We’ve putting aside our differences between our parties and pledge to work together and to show this we’re running together to hopefully be your next president and vice president.” I’d never vote for it since to me it’d just be two extremes pairing up, but I’d be with them in principle. However, if we’ll ever get things done again in this country, we need both parties to team up and work together like a president and vice president with different views of different parties (hopefully) would. A Colbert/Stewart vote, or for that any vote for a ticket of opposites, would be symbolic of that.
And that’s all of my thinking. I hope your question is answered since I don’t know what else is there which I didn’t just write…
September 11, 2011 at 10:11 am
@AB: I would only point out that political parties are made of those who show up: even at the national level. Moderate candidates don’t win because moderate voters don’t get involved. It isn’t any more complicated or simple than that.
September 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@AndyH
I don’t have data on this, but my gut feeling is that moderates either A) aren’t part of a mainstream political party (either are an independent or member of a third party) and thus can’t vote in the primaries in quite a few states which means the extreme factions of the party are the sole ones to choice the candidates, B) feel isolated and disadvantaged and thus see no point in getting involved or voting anymore, or C) both.
And don’t just take my word for it: CNN did an article today that backs up what I believe is going on. Extreme political ideology is dominating the parties right now, which is definitely a factor in drowning out the moderate voices.
Respectfully, Mr. Harrover, you’re over-simplifying an issue that involves quite a bit more factors then just moderates not voting or being involved. Are you asking the big critical questions: Why aren’t voting? Why aren’t they getting involved? My answer, as you’ve seen, is the rise of extremes, like the Republican’s Tea Party, and the parties embrace of these extremes. If the parties would generally return more to center-right or center-left views (with of course some on the far extremes), I believe moderates would feel like they have a voice again. Whenever the extremes seemingly gain influence, again like the Republican’s Tea Party, moderates feel like they don’t have a say anymore since the party platform doesn’t favor them. This is as an issue the Republican and Democratic leadership should be addressing.
My bottom line: You won’t get moderates involved or voting until you town done the rhetoric first.
Of course, this is all my personal opinion/theory, no more or less valid then yours.
September 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Just found something else I’d like to add to my other comment:
The Post’s take on the Tea Party. Somewhat of a different view then CNN but along the same lines of how the extreme right-wing has become the voice of the Republicans, even if the effect on different political campaigns is mixed, and agrees with my belief that willing to compromise isn’t viewed very highly anymore. Again, this is type of thing that causes moderates to be less involved in the way I described earlier. I can’t say I like the way politics is heading…
The people who yell the loudest seem to get the most influence in politics. We’ve seen it in Manassas and on the national level. And it isn’t the moderates who generally yell, it’s the extremes like the Tea Party…
September 12, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Andrew, thanks for responding. I was wondering where you were coming from and I have a better sense now.
I understand the concept of sticking with one’s principles. It certainly feels right to do so and it also has a good resonance to it. Cervantes’ character (DQ) stuck to his principles too and there’s a reason it’s called tilting at windmills. As with DQ, “sticking with ones principles” sounds great but it is often often misused as a place of refuge to avoid dealing with reality. Thus I posit that dealing front and center with reality is an a priori principle.
The point I’m making, likely in an unsatisfactory way, is that in life — not just in politics — we nearly always have to deal with less than perfect situations. Indeed, our life choices are typically between options that are quite far from perfect. We often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Noone is suggesting that we need to like it, but the reality is that we have to deal with it. Metaphorically speaking, when you withdraw and don’t “vote” for the lesser of two evils, then you are effectively casting a vote for the greater of two evils. So, if your underlying principle is to minimize evil (obviously a good principle), you have unfortunately violated your underlying principle by enabling the greater of two evils if you don’t vote for the lesser.
So, it’s up to you to determine which candidate, party, or whatever, you dislike less, and cast your vote there. To do less than that may be a copout hiding under the banner of misplaced principle.
As to your rebuttal to Andy’s observation, you have too many “ifs” and “shoulds” in your response. It’s a fact that those who are angriest are the one’s most likely to take action and vote. At present, the tea partiers are the most angry and they are turning out in numbers disproportionate to their size and they are having a significant influence. In 2008 the Left and many moderates were angry and they voted the Rs out of the White House and the Senate. Political strategists of all stripes understand this and nearly always try finding and tapping into an angry vein.
Political parties are not as centrally controlled as they once were, not by a long shot. If moderates want a voice, all they have to do is show up. If they don’t show up it’s their own darn fault. I don’t see how anyone desiring a moderate candidate has a leg to stand on if they don’t vote.
Ramble, ramble, etc.
September 13, 2011 at 6:45 am
“You won’t get moderates involved or voting until you town done the rhetoric first.”
I would suggest to you that if keeping people out of the voting booth is as simple as candidates saying bad things about their opponents then we’re in more serious trouble than I thought. Meanwhile, while moderates sit on their hands expressing their disapproval with the goings-on, the tea party is organizing and getting their candidates elected….
September 13, 2011 at 10:29 am
” Frankly most Republican candidates to me seem to pandering to the far-right, the Tea Partiers and such, which their “rhetoric” as you call it. Same for the Democrats, they all seem to be pandering to the far-left. ”
e
When pursuing the nomination of their party, Democrat or Republican, candidates must win the support of their base. This involves stating and taking positions that might turn off the “middle of the road”/moderate or independent voter. To paraphrase Andy’s comment above, the base is who shows up, donates and votes in primaries and general elections. Winning the base is the price of entry to the General. Once a candidate has secured the nomination, then they “moderate” or nuance their positions to appeal to the broader electorate. A smart campaign is one that successfully wins over the base, without getting onself pinned into the corner on too many wedge issues. Since we don’t (thankfully) have a parlimentary system of government, the “coalition” is not an option for the voter.
I often get a chuckle watching “I’s” get themselves twisted into knots over who each party will nominate. Don’t worry, as soon as each party has their slate set, they will come courting you.
September 13, 2011 at 10:39 am
Second Rule of Politics: decisions are made by those who show up.
I chuckle at that one as when it comes to our local Council, y’all elected in the last election only really “work” for the 1,000 of us that showed up and voted. City may have over 37,000 residents, and over 10,000 voters, but “those who show up” had the say.
September 14, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Two party systems sure are hard to swallow sometimes. We actually had four parties when Ike was elected in ’52, but within twenty years of his leaving Penn. Ave. we had the two we have now. What were the four? Well, the Republicans and the Democrats of course, but there were powerful moderating forces called the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. They helped make things actually work by moderating the bozos on the extremes. We need something like that now, but I don’t see it on the horizon after the gang of six got, well, deep sixed.
Regarding the recent ‘debates’, what a show. Watching these debates looking for substance and ideas is like going to the refrigerator looking for a pizza and a six pack and finding only moldy cheese, a jar of expired olives, and one year old Corona…..Light. It is alleged that God callled Rick Parry to run, but God also called Michelle Bachman to run as well. So apparently even God loves a train wreck. Bachman hasn’t gotten a chance to say much of anything……which is just as well. I just don’t know what to say about her opinion on the (HPLV?) vaccinations, but I’m sure it’s coming from a good place. Now, Rick Santorum is for all vaccines as long as their targeted virus isn’t spread by ‘dirty touchin’. I just love that phrase, dirty touchin, which I of course stole from Carrie’s psycho mom… I also stole all the jokes from my brother, but Andy lets me post here just the same…