I apologize to Matt (but not John, as he was too consumed with novel writing) for abruptly terminating my word exchange. Work and holiday junk brought the figurative hammer down on me, hard. I've been wanting to write, but my brain has been in a state of disarray and I've temporarily (I hope) lost the capacity for rational thought.
Reflecting on this, I'm feeling more like deciding NOT to vote in this primary is probably the Right Thing To Do. However, I'm still far from absolute, metaphysical certitude on the issue.
What I've realized is that by voting for a Tea Party candidate who might not get the nomination without my help, I'm - by definition - propping up a loser. I'm taking a fringe, or borderline fringe, candidate and artifically inflating them into the mainstream. If the Tea Party ethos was representative of the GOP majority, it wouldn't need my help in the first place, no? If, however, GOP voters (due to indecision or lack of principles or whatever) lean towards the more electable plastic conservativism, then that's the ideology and policy (not just the man) that they are endorsing, whether they realize it or not.
I want to see a defeat dealt to what I see as "false conservativism", rather than some beige, vaguely Right-wing, populist pap. That's not a bad thing to want. It's well intentioned, sure. But I liken it to convincing a small time criminal to attempt a bigger, more violent crime - all for the hope of getting him greater prison time when he's eventually caught. That's not an unjust intention, sure. But there are more straightforward ways of confronting injustice than such a convoluted - and frankly, dirty - plan. What if I talk him into a murder and he's never caught? Or he get's off on a technicality, like the arresting officer forgot to read him Miranda? I would bear responsibility for whatever crime he commited. Same thing.
In a VERY extreme circumstance, such methods might be OK. If all other avenues to justice are closed, and the stakes are high enough, then such a convoluted plan might be the only way. But that's not the case here.
At any rate, this all feels less dire now. Romney seems to be slowly losing the "electability" appeal as all other candidates, ANY other candidate is having some time in the spotlight (now it's Gingrich, God help us). Who knows, maybe Huntsman will even have 15 minutes to shine.
I think you're correct in your assessment to not act given your views of the situation and I accept the non-apology as I was dead to the world.
ReplyDeleteBut on a similar thread...
I've tried hard not to be one of those "LOOK WHAT THE MEDIA IS DOING NOW" types but with these republican candidates, it's hard not to feel that way that they are doing....something.
In some kind of order they seem to be propping them up one at a time and knocking them down.
The media knocks everyone down eventually I know, but this isn't how it went in the democratic primary the last time, or the republican one that time either. This one by one sniping is something new.
I'm not sure what to make of it...I think it's bad?
It's not the media, it's the People, via the polls. The news media goes off of this when trying to follow trends, before the actual contest begins.
ReplyDeleteThe media didn't just get in a room and decide to prop up Cain in order to sell papers. Based on sound bytes or debate performances, certain candidates start doing better or worse.
The narrative so far is one where people favor a Republic candidate (by a small margin) over Obama, but can't decide on who. Romney has been the PRESUMED frontrunner since the beginning, but hasn't polled very well in a general elction scenario. GOP primary voters have been "trying on" alternative candidates ever since, and each has disqualified themselves after a few weeks in the spotlight.
The media wants to sell news, so it follows the trends. Sometimes that involves "propping up" somebody, because of the disproportionate attention they receieve as the flavor of the month. It's not premeditated or malicious, just pandering and ratings whoring.
You're right. They are going on polls. I guess maybe these polls are behaving so differently than other times I remember.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should consider the mass reporting of these polls to be a bad thing, I'm not sure. Because so few people on the whole watch the debates and form opinions based on that. Then the polls change based on the few folks paying attention, they the 24-hour news cycle makes it snowball, and someone's campaign is dead in the water.
Then someone else steps up and it happens again.
I'm willing to believe I'm just noticing this because it's happening to "my party" and I may be misinterpreting what I'm seeing.
I didn't think it was malicious per se, it's not a liberal agenda (hell Fox news may be mainly responsible).
It just seems like a weird trend, but that's bound to happen over time.
I think there's some truth to viewing the hyper-polling environment as a bad thing. However, I don't think that's the case here. The obvious fact that we've been ignoring so far (in this conversation) is how terrible the Not-Romney candidates are. They've all managed to shoot themselves in the foot by saying stupid things, having baggage, or just generally looking moronic. Hence the hyper-active turnover in the polls.
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say that the media "vetting" process of paying extra close attention to the person rising in the polls is a GOOD thing. Whether that's giving exposure to Nasty-In-The-Pastie (Cain) or proliferating "gotcha" moments on the interwebs (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, and did I mention Perry?). Even calling these "gotcha" moments is unfair, because asking questions like "What's your opinion of Obama's policy in Libya" is not a loaded question. It's just a question. And a pretty fucking impor-, excuse me, very important question.
I would say it's like 70-30 between the quality of the candidates, and the nature of a race against an incumbent. The 2004 Democratic Primary was kind of a tossup too, with Dean as the front runner, but after he shot himself in the foot (YEAH!), there was a great deal of scurrying about looking for a replacement. I can't remember much of the 1996 GOP campaign, except that the A-Listers weren't really in the game.
There are plenty of viable candidates in the Republican Party, I'm sure. They're just keeping their heads down for the moment. I imagine the reason is they don't figure the odds of beating Obama are sure enough (though it's not an impossible task), they'd rather wait until 2016 when it's wide open, and they're not sure of their ability to satisfy an unpredictable base. And that's a smart move.
I agree that this race looks suspicously like a farce. In fact, it's a story that would have seemed over-the-top 15 years ago. But it's hard to escape the fact that these candidates have only themselves to blame. Standards have fallen far enough to allow these knuckleheads into a primary, but not far enough to let them take the reins in a general election. A candidate would probably need at least a basic knowledge of geography for that.
There are many reasons I enjoy our blogs, not the least of which is your ability to inform.
ReplyDeleteI concur. This is a good thing. Shitty candidates getting vetted, this is going to happen.
It's not the media, it's the pool of candidates.
I wish they'd all just sit down and let Romney handle it, even if he can't win.
And really, I don't know that Newt would be that bad but he REALLY can't win.
Thanks, buddy!
ReplyDeleteMore than someone like Romney who can keep is mouth shut, and open it only to repeat memorized "conservative" boilerplate, I would like to see someone who's both competant in a flavor of workable conservativism, and sincere in his devotion to those policies and ideals.
I admire Newt's knowledge of policy, but that's about it. His personality is completely toxic, and while Romney has a history of flipflopping, Newt's got a history of rank, unabashed hypocrisy.
Newt could rival Obama in debate performance, but I can't imagine how he'd run the country. The Nixon lover in me thinks I should give him a chance. But I don't think so.
I've never had the impression that Mitt has spoke his mind on anything. He's just telling us what he thinks we want to hear. That's not just weak and cowardly, but insulting too. Part of me thinks I'd rather see a Caligula-style madman in the race, but that's not a responsibly attitude.
Mitt is def. a cookie cutter boring guy. I think he'll do nothing well and nothing too poorly if he were president. That sucks that it might be a an option.
ReplyDeleteNewt is a Newt. Career politician also but a willingness to work across the aisle at least. I think.
I too would prefer a real conservative candidate that believed in their words and was a decent human being. It's a sad situation that that is not an option.
No need to apologize. I've been busy as well. It's "do or die" time as my first semester quickly reaches its conclusion.
ReplyDelete