Let’s not forget what this is all about…
In the midst of the discussion about the Bradley Effect and whether Hillary’s tears were contrived or spontaneous, the pivotal events march on by the minute. A couple of things: Bush is positioning himself as the savior of the Middle East and thinks he’s brokered a real Israeli/Palestinian peace accord. Is that his real legacy, if so, watch out in November. Iran is either a stupid provocateur or Bushco is saber-rattling. Guess which one? Lots of talk about a double dip recession in ‘08. And that’s just a snapshot of today’s news.
And what’s fascinating, lost in all the discussion about atmospherics, none of the candidates are saying a word about any of it. Hillary is testing ner new voice. Obama is preaching change to the choir. Edwards just wants to be heard. Romney has that deer in the headlights, who stole my cheese? look in his eye. McCain is just happy to be here and to be awake long enough to make an occasional speech. Ditto what’s left of Fred Thompson. Huckabee is waiting for instructions from on high. And Giuliani? Benito Nine Eleven is betting the villa on Florida.
I can’t imagine any sane person wanting to be POTUS given today’s headlines, no less the overwhelming task of unknotting the past 8 years. But we have at least 7 people vying for the privilege, many of whom occupy parallel universes. At some point we should be demanding specifics. Not just specifics on their past records but on what they think is important, how they will attack the challenges we face and what they hope to be realistic outcomes. It’s not too much to ask and we and especially the MSM, should not settle for less. It’s put-up or shut-up time.
Posted: January 10th, 2008 under Ain't That America, Bushco, Democratic Debates, Dumbocrats, Edwards, GOP, GOP Debates, Hillary, Iran, McCain, Obama, Racism, Romney, Sir Rudy, The Primary Season, Thompson, VOTE!.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from bdr
Time: January 10, 2008, 2:21 pm
I’m astonished how almost completely the word “immigration” has disappeared from both sides’ debate, but especially in the pigdom.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 10, 2008, 2:55 pm
You’re right, only Romney seems to be talking about it. Specificity is the 3rd rail of presidential politics…
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 11, 2008, 8:13 am
I have a different take: any candidate who takes on the issues you just mentioned would be crazy. Searching for peace in the Middle East is the pratting of lame-duck presidents: they all talk peace with a year to go when they have spent prior years killing or watching others kill innocent men, women, and children in the Middle East and around the world.
There is nothing a candidate can do about the economy, and any thing they say they can do they can’t. They would be lying. What presidents can and can not do about the economy is over-stated, and most successes or failures on this issue are because of factors unrelated to what a president can and cannot do.
Immigration is a no-win proposition in the primaries; a different story in the general election, and then only to get the Hispanic vote. Best to stay away from it for now or punt. Romney is just running out of issues he can exploit.
Somehow we have gotten this quaint, but false notion that presidents can do things without a lap-dog Congress. So the bigger issue is what kind of Congress do we have?! What candidates should be pressed on is how they would work with Congress? How would they restore bi-partisanship? They should be asked repeatedly what they will do if the Democrats don’t get a veto-proof Senate and keep control of the House? They should be asked constantly to define what they mean by “bi-partisan” and give specific examples of what they have done on this score? Pressed on these kind of critical administrative matters, the candidates are likely to show us more about who they are and what they have done than all this blathering and bleating. The winner is likely to be John McCain at one end and John Edwards the loser at the other end with everyone somewhere in between. I could make a case that Obama would fair better than Clinton, but not now or here.
Finally, the specifics about issues don’t get a candidate much. Bush got elected twice with nothing but generalities. Voters who decide late and create the winners are not voting on issues, but personality.
The big problem here is that those asking the questions don’t know if the answer is right or wrong for the most part, so all they do is ask a general question; they don’t follow up. And most of us listening are clueless as well. We are all locked into HOW a question is asked and answered rather than what the substance of the question and answer is. Funny lines and zingers are all we remember. Fact checking is a big business, but it comes days later. The lone exception here on TV is Tim Russert, on his show, but in the debates he came over as too hostile. Frank Rich is without peer in the press. David Brooks does a good job for the NYT, but I can’t wait until Kristoff comes back in a few weeks. I’m sure there are others, but not many.
Comment from Bob
Time: January 12, 2008, 7:03 am
Bush in the Middle East - must be the last year of a Presidency therefore he is on schedule.
I agree the debates, candidates positions etc. must focus on the future, as bleak as that looks. 2008 will be the beginning of true cascading problems - most of them economic. What i mean by this is things are tough enough on Main St…..we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Immigration and border security - the problem with no acceptable solution. Is it any wonder candidates are trying to avoid this like the plague. 
Write a comment