NY Republican Senatorial primary debate and why it reminds me of the upcoming Carroll County primary.
August 13th, 2006
August 13th, 2006
Let’s back up before we even attempt to go forward. Apparently New York Senator Hillary Clinton has two Republicans vying to run against her in this fall’s general election.
The New York Republican primary has former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer going up against a former President Reagan administration Pentagon official, Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland.
So far, by many accounts, it would appear that they are running neck-and-neck to see who can be the most unpleasant.
Now perhaps this essay is about the New York Republican Senatorial primary and maybe it’s not. Perhaps it serves as a good allegory for the Carroll County primary?
In Carroll County we have a number of folks who are trying to unseat various incumbents.
Whether some or all or none of the incumbents need to be replaced, is, to be simplistic about it – up to the voters. Inside baseball ain’t going to do it. And if any of the incumbents fail to be re-elected, I either hope or pray that negative politics is not going to do it.
So far, I’m not seeing a lot of campaigning that is reaching the average, overworked, busy Mom and Dad voter at the kitchen table.
Unseating an incumbent is hard to do. Usually a challenger needs to have an overwhelmingly persuasive and compelling platform to unseat an incumbent – or ride the wave of a sea change on the part of the electorate in approach to government. That kind of change of difficult to cultivate in an election campaign, it will only come from the grassroots.
Of course, if an incumbent has demonstrated incompetence, malfeasance, dereliction of duty or a plain and simple palpable lack of skills, knowledge and ability in which to do the job, then that is another story.
None of the incumbents has demonstrated that lacking. Oh sure, there is lots of political spin and rhetoric being bandied about, however, we also have too many young reporters in the county who have never learned or simply don’t have the time for the follow-up question.
The superficial will get ya through the article, but in the long run it is not sustainable...
In the case of the Senator Hillary Clinton’s New York contest, there is no such sea change on the part of the New York constituency and nothing short of miracle is going to prevent her from winning this fall. That’s reality politics.
Regardless of how you may agree or disagree with her politics, unless you are a New York voter, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the facts on the ground in New York.
On a political theory level, being unpleasant will work for sure if you’d like to win the primary and lose the general and be forever remembered as an unpleasant person.
I mean, after being unpleasant for months, whadda ya goin’ to do after the election?
Most folks know that you can’t get to a positive by utilizing the negative. It may work in the short term, but eventually folks catch on that it was not simply situational that you are a negative and unpleasant person, that it is systemic – it is who you are.
Sorta like the rule to never date a married person. What they are doing to their present partner, they can and usually do to you. And when they do you wrong in the future, they will rationalize it just as well as they are rationalizing it to date you now.
Apparently a few folks running for election in Carroll County have yet to figure this out.
And another thing while I’m on a roll; for those who want to plead that the elections this fall are not about taxes, think again. One wonders how many times that must be repeated before it will change reality and make it so.
I’ll put it this way. Taxes and big government are an issue with me. We don’t need bigger government; we need better and cost effective government – in Annapolis and in Carroll County.
As far as temperament, I would almost rather vote for a pleasant accessible, well-intentioned person with integrity - with whom I disagreed about certain issues than vote for someone with whom I agreed, yet was absolutely unpleasant about promoting their position.
A memo for challengers to the incumbents. I don’t care a rat’s ass about voting the incumbents out. That’s your thing. Hopefully the election is not about your personal feelings, it is about what you bring to the table professionally. I care about voting in folks who have a vision and a positive plan for families, schools, growth and lessening our tax burden.
Think about it, the two approaches are not the same. I’m voting for someone who is thoughtful, well versed in the issues, has a positive plan for the future and a person I can take my problems to (without a preachy condescending lecture.)
It is back to basics time. As a young man, my Mom hammered into me, it is all about what I do that counts. She never cared about what the other kids did. That was not of her concern. I cannot get to heaven based on the sins of others.
You will not be elected based on the perceived sins of the current incumbents or your personal dislikes of certain individuals. You will be elected because the voters believe that you will do a better job.
Stay positive. Voters ultimately want to know what you are going to do. You can say more about what you are against by saying what you are for and are going to do.
If you would like to get in touch with your feelings, go skeet shooting with me. Otherwise, this is about winning an election. I have no interest in electing enraged individuals.
Of course, the purpose of a primary is to win – and win in such a manner that a candidate will carry some momentum with them into the general election.
Going negative always needs to be carefully weighed. Usually folks who are behind go negative because they will often feel that they have nothing to lose.
Many folks become fixated upon serving as an elected official to “contribute and make a difference in the community.” Therefore, anything and everything it takes to win is justified by the winning.
My world view greatly disagrees with that position. There are many ways to serve, make a difference and contribute to a community beyond being an elected official.
I have had a practice and policy to “never” go negative. Although I have been the brunt of a negative campaign or two. When friends and colleagues pleaded with me to respond, I choose not to. If I had to win by going negative – the office and position was simply not worth it to me.
At this point in time, I have no regrets. If the electorate wanted to “hire” someone who moved their ball forward by being unpleasant, that is up to the voters. Ultimately everyone gets their karma.
So anyway, I was surfing the net as I was putting together some thoughts for my next Tentacle column and came across this in the Examiner… This… Well, what is it? I thought I had been diverted to The Onion.
This would be believable if it were on Saturday Night Live – but it is not. Apparently it was live, perhaps a little too live.
And these are the folks that the Republican Party is going to send up against New York Senator Hillary Clinton? I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.
This is pathetic. Except for one great line: "John, you are like the Clintons," she said. "You taxed and spent like Hillary and behaved like Bill."
I wonder if they later exchanged addresses so that they may exchange holiday greeting cards this winter?
Did they remove all sharp objects from the room before the debate?
I’m sure that Senator Clinton is laughing – and will continue to laugh all the way back to her Senate seat this fall.
If this is what it is going to take to defeat Hillary Clinton, than maybe it is not worth it for the karma of the party? She is simply not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Likewise, if the challengers in Carroll County want to continue to be negative, the incumbents are going to laugh all the way back in office this fall.
_________________
NEW YORK - The two Republicans vying to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this fall tore into each other Wednesday in a debate dominated by angry accusations of personal and professional misconduct and abject dishonesty.
From the early minutes of the hourlong forum sponsored by all news cable channel NY1, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer found himself repeatedly on the defensive about his unconventional private life and its impact on his tenure as mayor from 1996 to 2004.
While married to another woman, Spencer fathered two children with his then-chief of staff and substantially raised her salary. He eventually divorced his first wife and married his chief of staff.
So with an opening question from debate moderator Dominic Carter about whether a candidate's personal life should be off-limits, the responses got very personal, very fast.
Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland, a former Ronald Reagan-era Pentagon official, immediately accused Spencer of engaging in adultery and nepotism and said it spoke to his lack of credibility to serve in office.
Read the rest here, if you can stand it - - it gets better, err, Hmmm, I mean worse…
####
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.