This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 23, 2008.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Great Debates
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 9, 2008.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)