It Doesn't Work?

Everybody says that negative campaigns don’t work. And yet, it seems like every campaign eventually devolves to a series of name-calling and mud-slinging.

Everybody I know hopes that their guy won’t engage in such stupidity … but they do. Instead of actually explaining HOW they will do whatever they’ve promised to do, or exactly WHAT they think needs to change, and how it will effect Average Joe, they tell you what their opponent has done that they think is wrong. And if they can’t find enough of those types of things to tell you about, they will twist the facts or even make them up.

If negative campaigns don’t work, why do they do it? I suspect because negative ads DO work. If candidate A can throw enough dirt onto candidate B, then A will look better, especially since most voters have no idea what is true and what is not. I like that some of the news programs have started to ‘fact check’ things the presidential candidates say, but what about the more local candidates?

Even when the fact checkers say, “This statement by candidate A is absolutely wrong,” candidate A and his campaign continue to repeat it, over and over again, as if saying it a few hundred times will make it true. It doesn’t. But by repeating it that many times, they can drill it into people’s minds that it is true.

I hate negative campaigns. They don’t give me any INFORMATION to allow me to make an intelligent decision. But that’s one more reason why the candidates engage in them. They aren’t looking to inform you; they want to convince you. I suspect the candidates resort to mud-slinging because they really don’t have any idea how they are going to solve the problems of the day. So they have to convince the voters that their opponent is even worse.

What a Politician!

I call myself an Independent, because I don’t completely identify with either party. Most times when I vote, I’m voting against the one I think is the less desirable, rather than anybody I actually like.

So, Romney’s been visiting overseas. Apparently, he’s trying to show the American people that he’s ‘ready’ to be President. I’m not impressed.

He hasn’t managed to impress the people of the countries he’s visited, either. He stepped on toes (verbally) in England and Israel. When he tried to avoid any more problems by keeping his mouth shut (except for a well-rehearsed speech) in Poland, one of his ‘helpers’ lost his temper and used vulgar language telling reporters to have some respect in the holy Polish location they were in. Seems to me if the Polish people were insulted by the reporters trying to ask Mr. Romney questions, they would been even more insulted by the language used by Mr. Romney’s helper.

I did hear that the candidate’s assistant later apologized, but I have to wonder … did he apologize to the reporters for having lost his temper? Or to the Polish people for using such language in their sacred location? Is he still a member of Mr. Romney’s staff?

In my opinion, staff members are extensions of the candidate. If a staff member does something truly embarrassing, then I wait to see what happens. If that staff member faces consequences, that gives me a clue where the boss stands. If the staff member doesn’t face any consequences, then the boss is condoning whatever the staff member did.

In any case, I’m not thrilled with the prospect of having a president who insensitively insults some of our best allies. How would he treat countries we aren’t that close to?

True Colors

The more I hear about George Romney, the more I think I would have liked him. But I was too young to vote in 1968, so I didn’t pay any attention to politics. What little I know about George Romney is the bits of information I’ve learned from comments made during his son’s current candidacy for President.

When George was a candidate, he released a dozen years of tax returns. He wasn’t required to release that much, but he did it. To me, that says he wanted people to know he had nothing to hide, and was willing to go beyond what was required. A man of enthusiasm.

I don’t see those qualities in his son. I understand his father’s example of releasing a dozen years of taxes has become standard practice with presidential candidates. Surely Mitt knew that, but now that he is a candidate, he has released only 1 years’ tax form, and promised to release 2011’s “as soon as it’s done”.

Wait. It’s July and he hasn’t done last year’s taxes yet? Surely his bookkeeper knows these have to be done every year, right? You would think any bookkeeper working for someone as rich and important as a presidential candidate like Mitt Romney would have everything organized and streamlined so they could get his taxes filed on time.

“You don’t have any need to see any more tax forms,” the Romneys say. How about the need to know as much as possible about the person who may be elected the next president? Aren’t the American people entitled to that?

And now I hear that a group of people who had collected a few thousand signatures on a petition asking that Mr Romney release more tax forms did not find him in his political headquarters. No one in that office would accept the petition on Mr Romney’s behalf, and the people with the petition were escorted from the premises. Yeah, Mitt Romney sure does understand the American people.

There’s a saying that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. But I think Mitt is a whole different kind of apple than his father was.