OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers suggests that Barack Obama’s claims of post-partisanship don’t make any sense on the surface, but should be read as a coded appeal asking voters to move beyond identity in their voting patterns. It is an argument with several flaws.
First, Bowers launches his analysis from a Rasmussen poll finding that:
Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters nationwide say that it is more important to understand a candidate’s specific policy proposals rather than the candidate’s character. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 36% disagree and believe that it is more important to understand a candidate’s character.
Democrats, by a 2-to-1 margin, say it’s the policy options that matter most. Republicans, by a narrow 49% to 43% margin, disagree and say that character counts. Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say the policies need to be understood while 32% say character is more important.
However, as I have previously noted, those numbers can flip to as high as 55% putting character above issue positions, depending on the type of polling used. Indeed, most voters likely use both interactively — issue positions can give an insight into character, and character judgments influence voter perceptions of a candidate’s commitment to various issue positions. Indeed, Obama’s position regarding Iraq is an example of this dynamic. Obama argues not only that he was correct in opposing the invasion, but also that it shows he has judgment that trumps Hillary Clinton’s experience (such as it is).
Second, Bowers conflates character, identity politics and partisanship:
Clearly, many Democrats like to believe that they are engaged in a disinterested contemplation of the issues without regard to party, or character. As such, it is easy to see why claims of post-partisanship are appealing to Democrats. However, voting patterns in the Democratic primary reveal deeply seated identity based voting patterns that are not only partisan, but are partisan in a particularly base and unpleasant fashion.
Sorry, but no sale; the charges of racism and sexism being hurled by the rival Democratic camps in this cycle have nothing to do with the candidates’ policy positions, and little to do with what is being measured when voters are polled on character questions. Moreover, while it is not improper to refer to Clinton or Obama supporters as partisans for their candidates, the Rasmussen poll is based on party partisanship.
Third, Bowers does not account for the 16-year cycle of “change†elections often noted here. Both Obama and John McCain appeal to the current public demand for hopeyness and changitude, which is expressed in polls as the desires for bipartisan cooperation and the elimination of “special interests†in Washington, DC, as opposed to changes in domestic or foreign policy. That vision may be a mirage, but Bowers seems to be missing that Obama and McCain may be enirely willing to sell that mirage if that is what most voters say they want.
This campaign season feels like being stuck in a constant loop of The Rocky Horror Picture Show “Let’s Do the Time Warp Again” only my feet are tired and I’ve heard this tune so many times before that it’s just plain boring.
Fourty years of hearing
This campaign season feels like being stuck in a constant loop of The Rocky Horror Picture Show “Let’s Do the Time Warp Again” only my feet are tired and I’ve heard this tune so many times before that it’s just plain boring.
Fourty years of hearing
Sorry I did a double click before I finished my thought.
Fourty yeras of hearing same old tired ‘Classism-Racism-Sexism-Gayism’ no wonder the Horror Show had to create Global Warming Environmentals.
Indeed — if I am not reasonably comfortable about this consideration, I won’t even waste time listening to what a pol says he stands for.
The only thing I need to know about a candidate’s character is his attitude towards government coercion. The more he advocates the initiation of force to solve problems, the more of a bastard he is. He can be a war hero, a loving husband and father, kind towards animals, and scupulously honest at cards, but he if he thinks that there is no area of private life that the government doesn’t have the right to control, he is a totalitarian bastard. The rest is irrelevant.
Ardsgaine,
If your candidate had really libertarian issue positions, but was a pathological liar, would the latter affect your vote? I think it might. ;-)
So, as long as he says he’s against that, you don’t care if he’s a pathological liar who punts on his commitments in every aspect of his private life?
I think you’re probably not understanding how the rest of us use the word “character.”
Karl, I’d say “great minds,” but mine isn’t…
Hearing is good and they’re helping you. You could be seeing or have your body taken. Non humans could be staring through your head in your home and diseasing you and what you see.
Obama’s legislation is all African foreign aid money. There are a bunch
of them. The thing from Texas adds amendments to bills for African countries only because we owe Africa. They’re just not understood. America was evil and must pay. Obama’s best legislation is from England. He wants to tax us GDP for Africa.
His identity thing is Chicago and other Congressmen there who do the same thing, but just can’t get hold of that foreign policy money because it has to go to Africa. They hired a Peace Corps to get out the cash, but he turns out he’s a nut like the others………..space aliens using human bodies.
Obama and his Chicago pals can’t get away from their identity because that is how they made their money and how they spend everyones. They were owed those government jobs and we owe Africa government money. Americans aren’t that stupid, unless the youth gets taken and votes, but that’s Bill and Hitler…..
Maybe we should trade the earthquakes for tornadoes or something real convertible like hurricanes!
How would Democrats feel about party unity if McCain and Romney were involved in a knock down drag out hullabaloo right now?
Thye’d be content to let this inter party smackdown continue to it’s conclusion. The main reason why Dem candidates are under the microscope is the fear that, with McCain solidly in place and having some appeal to moderate voters, the electorate is looking far closer at messiah and the sniper ducker than is comfortable. After the inevitability of Gore and the annointing of Kerry Dems should be concerned with the overall electability of their candidates. Despite ample lip service to this idea, they don’t seem to be following the logical path.
The very sorts of things that might have caused Dems to question said electibility in both Gore and Kerry are now part and parcel of the cage match and many Dems don’t like it much. The spotlight shines a bit too brightly with an ideological tint. They are clinging to the ideology and identity of each candidate while, at the same time, calling for party unity when a significant numbwer of the masses don’t give a crap.
Toss in the killers of RACISM! and SEXISM! with a big, heaping dollop of IT’S OUR TIME! (insert race/gender here) and the Dems are left with a mess pretty much made of their own politics as usual.
The irony: It is thick here.
Well, it’s worth remembering — to be fair, which admittedly the Dems don’t deserve — that Gore and Kerry touted themselves on “electability,” and successfully as far as their respective nominations.
So, if those who will choose this year’s Dem nominee are gun-shy about trusting to “electability” I can’t say I blame them. McCoot’s “electability” doesn’t persuade me any better than Hillary’s would if I were a Democrat.
If your candidate had really libertarian issue positions, but was a pathological liar, would the latter affect your vote? I think it might. ;-)
Sure, because regardless of what he said, I wouldn’t really know his positions if he’s a liar.
And yes, if he is a murderer or convicted felon, those would have an effect also. They would be evidence of his real attitude towards the use of force.
Let me ask you this though: If you knew that McCain had indeed called his wife a vulgar name, and that, yes, he’s rather short tempered and testy, would you be tempted to vote for Obama? Would those character issues overshadow Obama’s beliefs about the use of government power, even given that McCain is only marginally better in that area? Or are you going to vote for the least statist candidate regardless of whether he’s a grouchy old fart with a potty mouth? I think there are a lot of character issues that you would ignore in order to have someone in office who is not going to expand the power of government.
This, btw, is different from what I’ve been saying about the Wright issue. Obama’s association with Wright goes directly to his beliefs about government. He sat in the church with Wright for those twenty years because he believed in what Wright was saying. We all know that. His association with the Weathercouple, and his history as an Alinksy-style organizer all sum up to leftwing socialist. We don’t have to dredge up all that arcana to discover his beliefs though. He has said enough about his positions on the issues to brand him as a leftwing socialist. He’s saying it openly and without embarrassment, so there’s no real “aha” moment in saying, “See? He’s a socialist!” At some point you have to go into why that’s a Bad Thing, if you want the accusation to carry any weight. That’s my position on that.
‘Scuse me: McClueless.
Okay, I’ve brought out before the difference between “character” and “personality,” and Ards, you’re conflating the two.
You’ll get nowhere on this subject until you educate yourself about the proper meanings of these words as the rest of us are using them.
Number 1.
If he/she/it is pathological liar anything else doesn’t matter as all else is simply a house of mirrors.
After that you can then begin to look at policy positions as you have some hope that they are real.
They 16 year cycle of change elections have one feature in the past two cycles. They were won by the best liar. 1976 Carter ran as a conservative democrat but wasn’t one.
In 1992 GHW Bush had already broken his word to his base on two major issues. The Clintons in the interview about the “Flowers affair” showed me that they also would tell any whopper to gain power.
The cycle seems to me to be one of elections where holding your nose is what you have to do to vote.
Spot on. Ideology trumps personal charisma and stump speaches. It’s the difference in listening to what someone says and feeling good and what he has demostrated and in what he believes at a gut level.
Ideology trumps all, for both sides of the election.
That having been said, a pathological liar and dissembler and hider of “real” views talks directly to character and, having tried to shield a true understanding of his/her ideology, renders that person too great a risk, both in closely held views and personal accountability.
Rommney gave the vets free school. McCain had a chip installed when he was tortured. He turns into dem when Pelosi shows Bush her inspection.
McCain isn’t really a Republican and will give away everyone’s cash when he gets the derby.
Okay, I’ve brought out before the difference between “character†and “personality,†and Ards, you’re conflating the two.
Why don’t you guys start a glossary of terms, then, and put up a link to it, so we can all be on the same page.
Let me jot this down real quick: The anger management issues of Herakles and Achilles were personality quirks, not character flaws.
Got it.
He turns into dem when Pelosi shows Bush her inspection.
Hey dude, this is a family blog!
Still, it is worth considering how Obama’s post-partisan claims are actually a coded appeal asking voters to move beyond identity in their voting patterns is what Chris Bowers says. But for real what I get more is a coded appeal to a harkening back to a neverwas that is very appealing to all thems what still have hardons for JFK and bought the Beatles One cd and are now a lot feeling their mortality and don’t want to die in the world they made.
Remember back in the day
When everyone was black and conscious.
And down for the struggle.
Love brought us all together.
Just sittin back and talkin.
Cultivating a positive vibe.
Blue lights in the basement.
Freedom was at hand and you could just taste it.
Everything was cool.
Ards
I’m no fan of McCain, but yes, his “open mouth before brain in engaged” IS more of a personality quirk. He has admitted publically it is his failing and many of the recepients of his flash temper comment on how sincerely contrite and willing to make amends McCain is immediately following episodes.
EVERYONE gets angry, some of us are better at keeping it under leash.
But unless McCain is smacking his wife or kicking puppies, I don’t see his anger rising to a point of character flaw. It then becomes a question of whether or not this personality quirk is problematic in a US President who has to deal with some really bad international characters.
At least McCain actually recognizes such characters — Barry wants Kumbyah moments with them while, until recently, finding FoxNews too evil to engage.
“Post partisanship” is just another example of Obama’s audacity of the con. He knows it’s bullshit, but he can sell snow to eskimos
I’m no fan of McCain, but yes, his “open mouth before brain in engaged†IS more of a personality quirk. He has admitted publically it is his failing and many of the recepients of his flash temper comment on how sincerely contrite and willing to make amends McCain is immediately following episodes.
I’m not arguing against McCain. If I can bring myself to vote at all, it will be for him. I was just trying to use the anger thing in a hypothetical to make the point that we will ignore character issues in our guys in favor of ideology, and McGhee is calling me on not having an updated decoder ring.
It then becomes a question of whether or not this personality quirk is problematic in a US President who has to deal with some really bad international characters.
Honestly, I think we need a president who still knows how to get angry at the bad guys. We don’t need anymore washed out political hacks who can look on the killing of American citizens and not get angry enough to do something about it. I’ve always liked Bush best when he was pissed.
It’s getting angry at the good guys that could be a problem, not having the patience to deal even-temperedly with people who are on your side. How a man treats his wife is a good indicator of that. I agree, though, that I’m not going to let it bother me like I would if there was evidence that he beat on her.
Calling it a “personality quirk,” though, is just another way of saying that you don’t find it highly significant. Feminists on the other side will have a very different viewpoint. For them it speaks to his character. Meanwhile, things that we find objectionable about a person’s character, like John Kerry accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes, they view in a completely different light. So it seems to me that talking about character just becomes a slightly more obscure way of talking about ideology, and I don’t find it as helpful as spelling out specifically what is objectionable about the other person’s ideas.
Ards, most of us are long-accustomed to the English language.
1) I don’t want bipartisan cooperation, generally speaking. That results is higher taxes, more spending, less jingle and all-around less freedom, because of what they’re cooperating at – it ain’t repealing bad laws!
2) The whole “but what about McCain’s temper thing (at least now) is silly – it’s not “an ass vs. a socialist,” it’s “an ass vs. a socialist ass (one of two).”
3) Sng is trying to steal my random dictionary words Shtick!
4) Isn’t pretty much everything politicians do in a campaign a coded appeal to vote for them?
Ards, they on the other side have been claiming for generations that the personal is political, and vice versa — so OF COURSE they’re going to apply their standards of “character” that way.
Doesn’t mean we should follow their example.
It’s pretty clear by now to all but the true believers that Obama’s “post-partisanship” is code for “my lefty policies are always right, and you knuckle-draggers will agree once I’ve broken the issue down into single-syllable words. If I bother to explain before implementing the policies for your own good. Now shut up and go hunt or something.”
Ards, they on the other side have been claiming for generations that the personal is political, and vice versa  so OF COURSE they’re going to apply their standards of “character†that way.
If you are arguing that character should be the first consideration in deciding for whom to vote, then you are saying the personal is political. Right?
Honestly, I think that people are just using character as a way to talk about ideology without having to talk about political principles. Measuring a candidate’s character is nothing more than reading his ideological aura, using certain signifiers that speak to their prejudices. The danger of this is that they have forgotten what their principles are, and they are voting for people who have the aura without the underlying ideology.
And that’s how we ended up with McCain.
Ohnoes!
FAIL
This is their second try at blogging that failed miserably. It’s so hard when people talk back, poor little monkeys.
The way the other side does it, they consider ideology first and then decide based on that how to judge character.
Stop being such a fucking blockhead.
It’s pretty clear by now to all but the true believers that Obama’s “post-partisanship†is code for “my lefty policies are always right, and you knuckle-draggers will agree once I’ve broken the issue down into single-syllable words. If I bother to explain before implementing the policies for your own good. Now shut up and go hunt or something.â€Â
I’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, and it’s fun to match up what candidates are saying with his description of fascism. The claim to be marking out a course that is neither left nor right has a long history with fascists. Ni droite, ni gauche. Of course, it’s a lie. It relies on the belief that the fundamental issue of the government’s supreme role in society has already been decided, and the only question is to what degree the government will control our lives. Their answer: To whatever degree we think is necessary at the moment.
What I’m noticing about the 16-year change-election cycle theory is, it seems to result from voters becoming tired of ideology. Consider 1992. The incumbent — an undeniably decent man with a military record that far overshadowed his opponent, was associated with an ideology voters had supported through three separate election cycles. And even though stagflation was long dead and the Cold War was over, the world had stubbornly refused to start farting rainbows and shitting lollipops.
Without ideology as a guide, what would they vote on? Character? George H.W. Bush had promised “no new taxes” and reneged, which voters reasonably took as a sign of fundamental dishonesty. I think it was stupidity myself — and paled in comparison to Bill Clinton’s character issues — but I was still arguing in favor of that ideology that had failed to elicit the required multicolor farts and sweet, tasty turds, so who was going to listen to me?
The last time “change” voters had relied on character they had elected Jimmy Carter, and look where that got us. So all that was left was personality — that of a candidate whose supporters were telling everyone, as Ardsgaine is telling us now, that character didn’t matter.
I think the bankruptcy of “character doesn’t matter” will bear on this election at least as much as Carter’s “I will never lie to you” lie did on 1992. I think most voters will be faced in November with two major party candidates who can be described thus:
The Republican is wrong on a lot of things, but for the right reasons (his character).
The Democrat is right on a lot of things, but for the wrong reasons (his/her character).
John McCain will win.
Stop being such a fucking blockhead.
You’ve been doing this to me a lot. I’ve been ignoring it, thinking that eventually you would realize that I’m not the Enemy and ease up. Apparently, any disagreement with you means the other person is an idiot. Since you can’t be arsed to write more than two sentences explaining your point, I don’t know why you expect to be understood by any non-telepathic person. Henceforth, though, I’ll leave you to your one-liners and expletives. Have a nice day.
“The personal is political” means when the someone on the right attacks the policies of someone on the left that is an attack on the person and is considered mean and spiteful and when the someone on the left attacks someone on the right by calling them names or saying how stupid or ugly they are then that is a political attack and is perfectly inbounds.
On the 1992 election “character issue”, breaking the no new taxes pledge was damaging but could be explained since a deal with the Dems was involved. Worse was his 1989 gun import ban done by executive order after the NRA had gone all out for him in 1988. That was the one that showed he could not be trusted on important issues and would bend over backward to kiss up to the Democrats.
I fail to understand how any position taken by someone who will lie to gain power can be taken seriously.
Calling you a fucking blockhead?
I’ve been trying to engage you, and you’ve done nothing but miss the point so persistently I have trouble believing it’s not on purpose.
Project much?
How ironic that this comes on the heels of my comment here.
Who else in this thread didn’t understand me? Are you the only non-telepathic person here?
That was the one that showed he could not be trusted on important issues and would bend over backward to kiss up to the Democrats.
Exactly. After four years of going along with the Democrats he could hardly run a campaign based on ideology, and no Republican who cared about ideas could have a high opinion of his character. The man was weak and craved the good will of people who were his ideological enemies. He tried to ingratiate himself with them, and it bit him in the ass. That’s why Ross Perot ended up with 19% of the vote.
The study that Karl quotes above about peoples’ attitudes towards character issues shows that this is primarily a Republican thing. So when Republicans are looking to pull in Democrats or Independents, they can’t simply harp on character issues. When they do, it makes it look like the ideological debate has already been won by the Democrats, and all the Republicans have is, “He smoked weed and had an affair.” If the voters don’t care what he smoked or who he screwed, then the Republicans lose.
I am not saying, though, that character doesn’t matter. My position is that: 1) ideology is character; 2) character is not necessarily ideology; and 3) the part of a candidate’s character that matters is the part that is bound up in his ideology. Any other details of his character are a tie-breaker for when we have two equally committed champions of individual rights (we should be so lucky).
So long as Republicans keep hammering the character issues, the general public is going to see it as evidence that they are weak on the issues. If they can’t ground their opposition to Obama on political principles, then they will lose this election. If the debate about the philosophy of government is over, and the statists have won, then the most consistent statist is going to win the election.
The claim to be marking out a course that is neither left nor right has a long history with fascists.
Rats. I was going to make that argument, but I’m a few hours late to the party, as usual.
So I’ll just second the motion, having read LF myself and heard way too many echoes of it in Obama and Michelle’s speech to ever feel comfortable with them in power.
No, I disagree.
If you asked the typical voter in 1992 about George H.W. Bush’s honesty, you would hear about the import ban EO only from people who were tuned in to gun issues. From typical voters who were more tuned in to the MSM — which in those days was a whole lot more than in 2008 — they would have been far more likely to talk about “no new taxes” as well as a few other things the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) were playing up.
It resonated because a whole lot more people cared about taxes than about gun policy.
Undeniably, the gun EO hurt Bush with what should have been his base, but the tax thing had already undermined him there anyway. Ultimately a lot of us who were supporting Bush found ourselves in the position of asking our fellow conservative-to-libertarians to go easy on him because he claimed to be on our side.
It didn’t fly, nor should it have.
Meanwhile, serial sexual-harasser Bill Clinton got a free pass from feminists because he claimed to be on their side.
Calling you a fucking blockhead?
Using expletives and insulting me.
I’ve been trying to engage you, and you’ve done nothing but miss the point so persistently I have trouble believing it’s not on purpose.
You told me I didn’t know what you meant by “character” without bothering to explain how you’re using the term. You also made a cryptic reference to how Democrats order ideology and character judgments and then called me a blockhead for not understanding what you meant.
Prior to #35 not one of your posts contained more than two sentences. That’s not how you engage someone. It is definitely ironic that our posts crossed, and I should have cut and refreshed before posting mine, given that I was busy on this end and it took a long time to finish. Still, I don’t see a huge improvement in #35. You simply accuse me of being in the same group as those who defended Bill Clinton on the grounds that “character doesn’t matter.” If I’m not getting your point, you are certainly not getting mine either. It was the focus on character over ideology that lost us that election, a focus made necessary by the fact that our candidate was an empty suit with no ideological principles that he hadn’t already sold out. See my previous post.
Who else in this thread didn’t understand me? Are you the only non-telepathic person here?
I don’t know who here has your decoder ring, but it wouldn’t have taken you that long to either re-explain or point me to the post where you did the explaining.
When you think a person is on your side, McGhee, you treat them with respect and play nice. As soon as you get a whiff of the Enemy, though, you turn on the flamethrower. I’m not the Enemy, I’m not a troll, and I’m not a straw man. The flaming is neither necessary nor productive.
The “he claimed” thing is what goes to the heart of the character issue. A claim is only as good as the person making it. Only after that can ideology and issues mean anything. Mostly we give politicians a lot of wiggle room on their claims but eventually they have to take action and then we can see if their words match what they do.
The left has their own take on the “character” issue because it is assumed that a good and true socialist must lie to advance the cause. They judge not on what is claimed vs actions but do your actions advance the socialist movement or hurt it? What is said means nothing as the words are considered part of the game that must be played to advance “the cause”.
Turning language and meaning to mush helps them since they only really care about “actions”. If words have no fixed meaning then how can any politician be said to lie? No one can tell then if their words match their actions since any words can match any actions. Then only actions have meaning.
Ardsgaine, it’s funny you accuse me of this after that thread a while back that you turned into an argument over legalizing drugs (I did look for it so I could hold your hand and show it to you, but it’s after midnight here and I have better things to do). I responded to your comment with one of my — as you point out — terse comments. Your response clearly read things into my comment that you had no business assuming I meant to say. I replied:
You never owned up to that, as far as I could see. Yes, I tweaked you over that because I thought you had done something silly and were apparently too proud to admit it.
But I’m the one who breaks out the flamethrower. Again, project much?
And in this thread you expect me to see to your elementary education, and you whimper over your hurt feelings when I don’t have time?
Decoder ring? No, Ardsgaine, it’s called paying attention. Jeff himself explained how much of an investment is expected of anyone who comes here. You want it for free.
I will admit I’m glad to discover I have not been calling you that particular name “a lot.” I don’t like to be repetitive.
And if I decide to make a hobby of insulting you, you will see something you have never seen before: Me giving a $#!+.
You never owned up to that, as far as I could see.
What was I supposed to own up to? You asserted that I had completely misread you, and… that was all. Another two sentence response. There were other people who were actually making arguments, so I ignored you and responded to them. It wasn’t until #74 that you tried to explain why I had misread you, and then it was just to assert that I wasn’t being nuanced enough, as if your two sentence comments are chock full of nuance.
Yes, I tweaked you over that because I thought you had done something silly and were apparently too proud to admit it.
Oh, the corporate shill line was nothing. I just tweaked you back, and that was that. I’m thinking of when I first came back to PW, a month or so ago, you started straight in cursing at me because I was disagreeing with one of Karl’s or Dan’s posts.
But I’m the one who breaks out the flamethrower. Again, project much?
I didn’t flame you. I didn’t curse at you, I didn’t call you any sort of name. If you call that response flaming, then…
And in this thread you expect me to see to your elementary education, and you whimper over your hurt feelings when I don’t have time?
…you don’t need to accuse anyone of whimpering over hurt feelings.
My feelings weren’t hurt. I was just letting you know how tedious you are being, and why I would be ignoring you, since it seems to bother you when you are ignored.
Decoder ring? No, Ardsgaine, it’s called paying attention. Jeff himself explained how much of an investment is expected of anyone who comes here. You want it for free.
Jeff’s posts have handy little links off to the side, your comments don’t. Do an experiment. Use the search function to find the comment where you explained the difference between personality and character. Let me know how that works for you.
And actually, no, I don’t think Jeff ever said that anyone who comes here has to spend weeks reading through the archives and learning the positions of all the regulars before engaging in dialogue with them. If you find it too tedious to retype a brief explanation, that’s fine. We don’t have to debate each other. It’s purely optional.
And if I decide to make a hobby of insulting you, you will see something you have never seen before: Me giving a $#!+.
If you don’t care enough to put any effort into a discussion with me, that’s okay. I’m not going to waste my time trying to read your mind, though, only to be insulted when it fails. When you find that I am ignoring your comments, that will be why.
If you knew that McCain had indeed called his wife a vulgar name,
Johnny Mac called his wife Mr. Spock?
GODDAMN THESE NEW GLASSES!
h/t Rev. Wright
Hey McGehee,
You and Ardsgaine wouldn’t be arguing so much if you were both taking big hits off of the same perfectly legal “Fat Buddha” water-bong?
Something to think about.
Geez McGehee, could you be a bigger fuckwit if you really tried?
…
Oh wait. “Fuckwit” probably isn’t precisely the correct term, let me consult my dictionary and I’ll get back to you.
Meanwhile, back to the issue at hand… Does a candidate’s character and personality matter more or less than his/her policy positions?
Seems to me that most of the policies being argued aren’t anything the president can do much about. Health care? C’mon. The Dems have been in control of both houses of congress for two years now. If they wanted to do something about health care they’ve had ample opportunity.
Likewise, most of the rest of the discussion of policy is just empty out-gassing, as most on both sides of the aisle seem to stand for nothing beyond lining their pockets and increasing their power. Their only real policy is to go with whomever is waving money under their nose at the moment. Yeah, that’s pretty cynical, but it seems largely true.
Given that a candidate’s policy positions are for sale to the highest bidder, character does become a big issue. Unfortunately, character is something that all three of our main candidates sadly lack.
Might as well flip a coin, they all suck.
Hi! very amused by the website .