Non-political Political Rant

[dreamflower]

I'm not putting this behind a cut because I hope that other people might find something to think about in it.

This is a non-partisan rant, and does not necessarily apply to the Presidential race, although it could.

I am a newcomer to this state. While the selection for president is the main issue on the ballot for me, there are other races and issues that I will need to address. So I have been googling the various candidates for various offices, trying to find out what and whom I am supposed to be voting for. When you've lived somewhere for 30 years, this isn't usually necessary, but when you are a newbie, you have to start somewhere.

Now there are a lot of ways to make up your mind about a candidate. Straight party line is one, but even though I’m registered Dem, I’ve never voted a straight Democratic ticket since I turned 21 (I missed being able to vote at 18 by one election.) Or you could vote on what a candidate looks like, or how they wear their hair. You can even try to figure out the issues. But there’s only so much time to make a decision, and I’ve found one basis to make it on.

I will not vote for a candidate who makes the majority of his/her campaign consist of nasty personal attack ads. I have already made a decision for US senator on that basis, and there is another local office that I have also decided about on that basis. And I have decided on Representative based on the candidate’s completely positive ads: she does not so much as mention her opponent in *any* of her ads. She simply gives her qualifications. She has my vote. I don't even know which party she represents.

Furthermore, I will be sending a message to the campaigns of those whom I decided against on this basis, and tell them *why* I refused to vote for their candidate.

Politicians have a chance to win and educate new constituents, whether they are young people voting for the first time or long-time voters who have moved to a new area. They would do well to consider how easily negativism can lose them those votes.

If negative ads turn you off too, I encourage you to email the campaigns of those running them, and tell them why you are not voting for their candidate. Maybe if enough people do that, elections can get to be a little more civilized.

Personally, I think it would be kinder for them to stand in a field and beat one another with sticks until one of them gives up. At least that doesn’t drag their families and everyone else down too.

Okay, no more politics here. Back to your regularly scheduled hobbits.

Comments

[shirebound]

she does not so much as mention her opponent in *any* of her ads. She simply gives her qualifications.

How refreshing.

I ♥ your post.

[dreamflower]

I think Gandalf would make an excellent president, except I don't think he'd take the job.

I really like her campaign. It just shows her going about her business and meeting people, and tells who she is and why she'd do a good job. It doesn't even talk about the office she's running for, but down in the corner is her name: "So-and-so, for Congress". It's very low-key, the most tasteful political ad I've ever seen.

I have no idea if it will work for native Oklahomans, but it's definitely worked for *me*.

[dreamflower]

It is refreshing. That's why I will vote for her.

[aspenjules.livejournal.com]

I decided one race based on that very same thing. Unfortunately, it was because the one candidate (that I decided against!) was running the most vicious personal attacks I believe I have ever seen. I have never seen one single ad based on what she believes. In fact, I had to search hard to find who it was who was running AGAINST the person being attacked so viciously. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single negative ad being run against that person.

Unfortunately, it appears that that tactic may be working for her. It turned me off, but the majority of voters seem to be swallowing the tactic whole. It makes me ill, to be honest.

*contemplates sending irritated!Aragorn her way*

[dreamflower]

Unfortunately, it appears that that tactic may be working for her. It turned me off, but the majority of voters seem to be swallowing the tactic whole. It makes me ill, to be honest.

That's a shame. I don't know if my one little vote will make a difference here, but I plan to make a statement with it, nonetheless.

[meneleth.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[dreamflower]

*high five*

[claudia603.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. The nastier an ad campaign, the more "dirty" I feel at the idea of voting for that person. That's why I'm glad that Obama has stayed relatively clean (in comparison to McCain's nastiness).

[dreamflower]

Thing is, even when Obama's run "attack ads" they have focussed on McCain's policies and records. So while I'd rather not see them at all, they are better than ads trying to paint his opponent's character.

And while I'm at it, I am getting sick of the line McCain uses about not needing "on the job training".

Fact: ANYONE who takes the job of President of the United States, whether they are young or old, whether they've EVER held office before, is going to need "on the job training" because that job is unique. There IS no other job like it, and years as a mayor or a senator or a governor STILL won't be the same.

[harrowcatliz.livejournal.com]

Good for you. I feel exactly the same about British Politics.

We have just had good news about the levels of the C.Diff hospital bug. The opposition's response? It was lower when we were in charge!

[dreamflower]

At least I think y'all have less time to put up with the nonsense. Am I right in thinking that there is a specific number of weeks they are allowed to "politic" before an election? Or is that a misconception?

Over here, we scarcely get a break. It seems they start campaigning for the next election as soon as the previous one is over. *sigh*

[harrowcatliz.livejournal.com]

Yes, active politiking anyway! But we get enough of yours to tied us over!

[telperion1.livejournal.com]

I agree with you - basically. My issue is that sometimes personal things reveal an important thing or two about a person's character and the way they govern. A good example is the pregnancy of Bristol Palin (Sarah P.'s daughter). I feel for the girl, to be sure, but given how little we know about Gov. Palin I think it's interesting to see how RL experience might have influenced her thinkings on (say) abstinence-only sex ed.

(You could make a similar case for Obama on some issues, too. The Palin example just jumps to mind because it's an issue that's pretty important to me.)

I guess my point is, I think there's *some* personal points that can bear discussing. The problem is how to discuss them in a civil way. I don't think politicians do this very well, especially at the local level.

So while I won't draw a line in the sand like you will, I agree that negative campaigning turns me off a candidate, too. (Good on you for investigating this decision, btw!)

[dreamflower]

The thing is, I don't believe it's the job of the opposing candidate to dig up these things and take advantage of them. I believe it is the job of the media to dig them up, report them to the public, and allow people to decide how relevant the information is.

I agree: there are a number of things about Sarah Palin that we've needed to know--her daughter's situation, the business with her ex-brother-in-law, her shopping spree. Those are all relevant to her character. But those things have not been brought up by Obama, or even Biden. They *have* been brought out, and brought up, by the media. Which is as it should be. There is a reason we have freedom of the press, and that the news media is called the "fourth estate". It is their job to blow whistles, and let us know when something is going on--and it's our job to judge whether those things mean anything to us or not.

I think politicians should stick to such things as the issues, and how they intend to *deal* with those issues. Or their opponent's record in dealing with those issues--and if that record is lacking, then that's a legitimate use of negative campaigning, though I'd still rather hear about what the candidate's going to do rather than his/her opponent.

I've never had to invesigate local issues before, because I already knew what was going on and was familiar with who was running--but being a new kid on the block, I do need to have some sort of criteria to go by, and this one seems like as good a one as any.

Re: Your icon: A watery tart throwing a sword seems just as good a method to me sometimes as the system we have, LOL! It would certainly be quicker and more efficient.

[telperion1.livejournal.com]

You know, I can totally go along with what you're saying re: ads vs. media coverage. That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

One last question, because you have me thinking about this stuff. Let's say the traditional media corps are already talking about an issue - is the opposing candidate allowed to comment? Using the Bristol example: say the story has been broken by the news. Is there any room for Obama to make a speech where he recognizes the situation and lays out his own policies about the importance to support pregnant teens? Or could he perhaps share an example from his own past where a personal experience changed his policy on some issue? That seems like the kind of politicking that would be relevant, though I do see how it would be difficult to do.

I don't know the answer, honestly. This is where my inner philosopher starts getting really frustrated.

Btw, thank you for your opinion. I think you shared it quite sensibly and respectfully, both in your initial post and in your reply to my comment. It's so refreshing! I am not trying to comment you, just get your opinion because I really liked the tone of your first post.

[dreamflower]

One last question, because you have me thinking about this stuff. Let's say the traditional media corps are already talking about an issue - is the opposing candidate allowed to comment?

I don't think it is a case of "allowed" or "not allowed"--the candidate can say what he/she likes (or what his/her handlers agree to). But I think that choosing to comment on a situation like the Bristol pregnancy would say more ahout the candidate's character than the opponent's. That's why I think that it's a valid criteria for judging a candidate.

I don't think that Obama could have easily said *anything* on the subject that would not have backfired in some way--and therefore it was both wise and civil of him to say that he felt that families were "off-limits". This made him go up even more in my estimation.

Of course, there were others (in the media) who did indeed bring up that issue and its relevancy--I'm afraid that at the very least it's an indictment of Palin's "abstinence only* policy and at the most it paints her as an ineffective parent, perhaps even a hypocrite.

On the other hand, when the McCain camp began to harp on the Ayers thing and imply that Obama was a terrorist, well, that said a lot to me about what John McCain and Sarah Palin were willing to stoop to in order to win an election. And so John McCain, whom I had admired and respected even while disagreeing with, went down in my esteem.

I'm glad you think I shared my opinion in a sensible and respectful manner. That's always my aim--I truly believe in civility when people talk about politics or other controversial subjects. Thank you for saying I succeeded.

[gamgeefest.livejournal.com]

I agree. It totally turned me off voting for Hilary. When I saw her on talk shows and debates, just talking about *her* politics and experience, I quite liked the woman, but then I'd see her ads where she's just smearing everyone else, and I couldn't stand her.

Of course, that now means we're deciding between Bush Jr Jr and a man who thinks Americans should learn Spanish and who has more shady connections than the Mafia. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out later that he did have connections with the Mob. *sigh* I wrote in my candidate.

[dreamflower]

Well, I have to confess that I am mainly making my choice on President based on the health-care issue. I supported Hilary because if they'd listened to her 16 years ago, we could have avoided some of this mess. I still hope she will have some input into that issue.

And McCain's plan of saying that we can use a $5,000 tax cut in order to buy our own insurance, when a decent plan costs somewhere between $12,000 to $15,000 makes no sense to me.

Ah well. What will be will be. I still think we need Aragorn for King. Back to monarchy! ;-)

[gamgeefest.livejournal.com]

Ok, now I'm confused. Who was wanting to tax our health benefits that we receive?

I don't know what Aragorn would think of our modern-day world. I'm reminded of a sketch on the Daily Show where Jon Stewart brought Ab Lincoln from the past to comment on current issues, and all Ab could do was goggle at the electric lights and wonder what manner of witchcraft brought him there! LOL!

[dreamflower]

McCain wants to tax our health benefits and cut medicare in order to fund the $5,000 cut he's going to give us. La-di-da. He basically wants to do away with employer provided benefits and "allow" everyone to buy their own policies.

Obama's plan is not perfect, but it beats the heck out of *that*! He will continue the current employer provided system for those who want to keep it, and allow everyone else to buy into Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield if they want to. He will also put an end to the "pre-existing conditions" exclusions--a very important issue to me and my husband. I think he also wants to expand Medicaid, but I am not sure of that.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

Mixed feelings on the whole healthcare issue. I think McCain's got it wrong in that 5000 is way too little, but I'm not sure how I feel about mandated health care when I'm watching NHS in Britain and other places being manipulated by the pharmaceutical companies, etc. to push for medicating "prediabetes" and obesity, or making people pay extra for "metabo" like Japan.

*sigh*

My health care issue with McCain is HIS health. Palin worries me.

[songspinner9.livejournal.com]

Yup. Try discussing the ads when one is teaching both the history of early Islam and current events to teenagers. "You know how we tell you not to use put-downs or to lie about people, or to be a bully? Well...."

Sigh. When that set of bigots starting shouting things at McCain's rally recently, and all he asked them to do was to behave nicely with respect, I kept thinking "You can't just say that Muslims aren't terrorists? That Islam is a religion that believes in the same God as Christians?" But no, that might have "upset" someone, telling the truth. Sheesh.

[dreamflower]

I was struck by a clip of one of his rallies when a lot of that started, and he tried to say something like Obama was a decent man who just disagreed with him, and his own people started *booing* him! What? You can't say *anything* good about your opponent? Mob mentality is really frightening!

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

Massachusetts has a great website done by a local college student: http://www.imagineelection.com/index.php to help people learn about local choices. I wonder if there's something like that for you? League of Women Voters is usually good for info.