If I find out Strickland tweets his VP pick, I'm not voting for him either.

LOL C U L8R

First, it's Lt. Gov. not VP.  Second, twitter has been used for some good such as during crises for instance communication.  99% of it is a waste.  I bet the loser of the Fisher/Brunner Senate-nomination curfuffle will be Ted's Lt. Gov.

^Even though I was never going to vote for that clown, tweeting should be an automatic no vote. Man, I hate twitter. Most of this "social networking" is just a big waste of time, and it has become a marketing tool for companies that hire young people. Even facebook (which was good in its infancy on select college campuses) has gone overboard. Myspace always kind of sucked. I'm starting to even hate text messaging too. I just prefer face-to-face contact over other types of communication. In terms of online, email and forums still beat all the other crap. New isn't always better.

 

Twitter is by far the worst thing ever invented by man. If I find out Strickland or anyone else tweets their VP/Lt. Governor/political picks, I'm not voting for them either.

I think this post proves you're getting old. (Sorry, felt the need to inject some smartassedness into the conversation.)

Strickland chooses Brown as running mate

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 10:46 AM

Updated: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 1:26 PM

By Joe Hallett and Mark Niquette

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Gov. Ted Strickland has confirmed his choice of Yvette McGee Brown as his running mate, giving the Democratic ticket gender and racial balance against the Republican ticket of John Kasich and Mary Taylor.  Strickland sent an e-mail to supporters about 12:30 p.m. announcing Brown as his choice.  The two are to appear at Ohio Democratic Party headquarters at 2:30 p.m. to officially announce their political union.

 

Brown, 49, has been out of political office since 2002 when she resigned as a Franklin County juvenile court judge to become president of the Center for Child and Family Advocacy at Nationwide Children's Hospital.  The center is devoted to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and domestic violence.  She will replace as Strickland's running mate the current lieutenant governor, Lee Fisher, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.

 

Full article at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/19/strickland-chooses-brown-source-reports.html?sid=101

Strickland trails Kasich in race for governor, poll shows

 

COLUMBUS — Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, who roared into office three years ago with nearly 61 percent of the vote, trails Republican John Kasich 51-45 percent in a Dayton Daily News/Ohio Newspaper Poll released Sunday, Jan. 24.

 

Graphic: Poll results comparing those who would currently vote for Strickland or Kasich for Governor of Ohio

 

Graphic: Results for various questions regarding Ohio politics and economics in the Ohio Newspaper Poll

 

Full article at http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/politics/strickland-trails-kasich-in-race-for-governor-poll-shows-508367.html

Yeah, front page story in the Dayton Daily News.  They also break it out by region.  Once again, the Peoples Republic of the Western Reserve (AKA NE Ohio) is the supporter of the Democrat.

 

Strickland is giving his State of the state speech, today.

I think Kasich is going to win in November.

^ I agree.  Strickland has been pretty weak.  He got stuck with a budget that wasn't his fault, but excuses won't work and he lacks charisma. 

Incumbents often do poorly when the economy is bad, so even if Strickland had done a good job I think he'd have trouble.

.

"I believe in Ohio because you can't write the history of the world without us without flight, without light, without Rock and Roll, without professional football, without John Glenn in space and John Glenn on the Earth, without the tomato, without the underground railroad, without Roy Rogers, without tires and ignition switches, without the humble fly swatter, without the Richter Scale, without Jesse Owens running for gold and for all of us in Berlin, without street lights, without fire departments, without Superman."

 

Former U.S. Rep. John Kasich, the Republican candidate for governor, has made a gradual phase-out of the income tax central to his campaign platform.

Bam, Kasich won right there.

While I don't have a lot of respect for Kasich, I agree that campaigning on killing income tax could win this for him. I don't think that he would be successful at actually removing the income tax, but that won't stop voters from picking him over a cantidate that they didn't see using their taxes well. How many people are really going to vote for they guy that wants to leave taxes alone when someone is running on eliminating them?

Kasich could very well win off of that, however I would hope that someone asks him which programs would be cut... and when.

 

Getting rid of the state income tax would definitely help lure residents and businesses back to Ohio.

Cut taxes, attract business and people, encourage saving, increase per capita income, and BAM government revenues go UP, not DOWN. 

 

The library gimmick is a joke.  Strickland played that game earlier this year when he didn't want to cut his wasteful spending and acted like it was either the income tax cut or the libraries.  It's about priorities.

 

I will never forgive Bob Taft for cutting the libraries, but that doesn't mean I'll be beholden to Strickland in November.  He better grow a brain soon if he wants to have any chance of even competing with Kasich.

It takes a whole lotta new business to replace lost revenue from tax cuts.  There's basically no way the revenue would be regained for several years.  You really need to have a comprehensive plan for getting these businesses up and running and paying taxes right away, or you could have an absolute crash in basic services... including services needed by businesses.  And dropping taxes on businesses (which Ohio already did on a massive scale) is not a very direct lever on per capita income.  Many high-tax states are very attractive for business, and many low-tax states aren't.  I thought Taft's tax cuts were a good idea, all things considered, but let's keep in mind that taxes nationwide have dropped dramatically in the past 30 years, and so has the nationwide economy.  Maybe there's not as much correlation as is suggested.   

the state income tax accounts for roughly 1/3 of the state budget at over $7 billion.  1/3 of the budget.  No income tax may work well in a state like Florida where you have a gagillion dollar a year tourism industry, but not so well in Ohio where there, well, isn't.  As 327 points out if you are planning on doing something like this you better have a DAMN good plan in place on how to replace the revenue or the results could be catastrophic.  This drastic measure might be the thing that lures the votes... or it might be the thing that scares the bejesus out of anyone (and their votes) whose ever even glanced at the budget.

I'm not sure if Kasich will be a good governor, but I think he will win and be better than Strickland.  If I could pick a governor from another state to come to Ohio to clean up our mess, I'd pick Indiana's Gov. Mitch Daniels.

 

Read these two pieces on Mitch and I bet we'll all pretty much agree that he has done good things for Indiana:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431100758568602.html

 

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/277bjeer.asp

.

Remember a phase out of the income tax was already in place before the Democrats stopped it.

Remember a phase out of the income tax was already in place before the Democrats stopped it.

 

I wonder if any of the state agencies have data that would indicate the repercussions or charts showing trends. I'm too young - I didn't care about politics back then so I don't know anything about that. It seems very anti-Ohio even if we are in hard economic times.

 

I disagree with C-Dawg about the 'right' perpetually going farther to the right. It's a tug o' war match and you have people on opposite ends fighting for opposite change. You get slight change but you ultimately end up right where you began.

^that's my concern too David.  I hope Kasich can follow Mitch Daniels example.

John Kasich is currently accepting questions on his website that he states he will answer via internet on Thursday, January 28.

 

I put forth questions regarding; his stance on rail transit, his stance on overall urban development, and his stance on slowing/stopping brain drain and how he will help young college grads obtain jobs.

Good idea to flood him with questions like these.  We need a Governor like Kasich that pays attention to urban/transit redevelopment as part of economic development.

.

If Kasich can do something to make Ohio more business friendly I'm for him.  This NCR/Georgia thing really woke me up on this issue.

I think that will be the major narrative of the campaign.  Attracting business to Ohio.  I think someone's sole job in Atlanta is snatching Fortune 500s from southwest Ohio.

 

Im thinking a radical conservative makeover of Ohio might be worth trying.  Making Ohio the equivilant of a southern state like Georgia or the Carolinas in terms of taxes and regulations.  That would only happen if Kaisich has a working conservative GOP majority in the statehouse.

What do you mean by radical conservative?  Balance budget, build a surplus, cut spending, cut taxes too?  I think the elephant in the room is regulation.  Most people don't understand how many well-intentioned regulations kill businesses through a death by a thousand cuts.

 

The Columbus Dispatch on Sunday ran a front page story on Kasich being a pragmatist that played very well for him: Kasich big on budget balancing

 

Strickland needs a miracle to win in November and that's just the way it is.  If I was inclined to vote against Kasich because of what some Republicans have said about it, I'd start lobbying Kasich hard for 3C by laying out all of its benefits.

 

From what I know of Kasich, he doesn't seem like a social conservative ideologue like Blackwell or a bumbling fool like Taft.  Strickland seems to be coasting most of the time, taking his cues from DC or the Democratic Party.  I watched part of the State of the State for the first time this year and was aghast by Ted's 'green' theme.  Not that I'm against 'green' technology and innovation especially if it's in Ohio, but that seems to be the only arrow in his quiver.  I didn't keep track but he talked about solar and windmills a lot and even biorefineries a few times.  This is all well in good but its only going to employ a small number of highly trained professionals.  A far cry from what we've lost in GM and Delphi alone.  In a comical twist of fate, Dayton might unwittingly become home to a flying car manufacturing plant: Flying car company considers move to Dayton, report says

 

And he totally skipped over the fact that Ohio is losing population and Fortune 500s.

 

Why did NCR come to Atlanta?  The oft-quoted Atlanta Business Chronicle writes:

 

Relocating to Atlanta — the commercial capital of the Southeast — makes sense for the company. Four of the cities in Ohio — Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland— are among the top 10 dying cities in America, according to an August 2008 report in Forbes. "They [NCR] can’t recruit talent to move to Dayton, Ohio," the source said.

 

^That whole Dieing Cities study is a bunch of BS. Also, in this economy anyone who refuses a good job at a good company just because it isn't quite Chicago or New York is an idiot.

Not to go too far off-track with the Dying Cities study, but how can it be BS?  The facts of the census are what they are.  Even if they are "dying" via out-migration to their suburbs, the city itself is still losing population.

I want to take a good, hard look at Kasich.  Anyone have any suggestions on where to find objective analysis of his platform?

 

Scrabble, in response to the "dying city" thing, I think it is time to revive the greatest thread in UO history:  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16950.msg314256.html#msg314256

Agreed to all of the above.  The problem is quality, not quantity. There are a great deal of people Ohio would do well to export. :D

Cleveland is a little bit of a different story. It is vital to the State that some sort of turnaround can be achieved. It is worrisome that the city's population decline is also not showing signs of slowing down. However, the metropolitan area is still quite large so there is still plenty of people living in the area to help reverse the trend and make things happen.

Just a little correction, the actual city of Cleveland lost population at a slower rate than most of its suburbs, meaning the rate of population loss in Cleveland has slowed down.

Cleveland is a little bit of a different story. It is vital to the State that some sort of turnaround can be achieved. It is worrisome that the city's population decline is also not showing signs of slowing down. However, the metropolitan area is still quite large so there is still plenty of people living in the area to help reverse the trend and make things happen.

Just a little correction, the actual city of Cleveland lost population at a slower rate than most of its suburbs, meaning the rate of population loss in Cleveland has slowed down.

 

Well, not saying you're wrong, but that fact alone won't prove it: It could also simply mean that the rate of population decline in the suburbs has accelerated even more.

Cleveland is a little bit of a different story. It is vital to the State that some sort of turnaround can be achieved. It is worrisome that the city's population decline is also not showing signs of slowing down. However, the metropolitan area is still quite large so there is still plenty of people living in the area to help reverse the trend and make things happen.

Just a little correction, the actual city of Cleveland lost population at a slower rate than most of its suburbs, meaning the rate of population loss in Cleveland has slowed down.

 

Well, not saying you're wrong, but that fact alone won't prove it: It could also simply mean that the rate of population decline in the suburbs has accelerated even more.

That is true, but I think the amount of people leaving the city was also less than it was in previous years, but I don't remember where the article/post I got that from is, so...

This is interesting from Wikipedia about Kasich's past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich#Actions

 

Kasich is considered a fiscal conservative, taking aim at programs supported by Republicans and Democrats, teaming up with Rep. Ron Dellums to cut spending on the B-2 Bomber and Ralph Nader in seeking to reduce corporate tax loopholes.

 

During the 1996 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Bob Dole was reported to have considered Kasich as a vice presidential running mate but instead selected Jack Kemp, a former congressman and HUD Secretary. However, during his 1996 re-election campaign [to the House of Representatives] Kasich's Democratic opponent in his House race, Cynthia Ruccia, made comments questioning Kasich's sexuality in an attempt to damage him with conservative voters. Ruccia raised the question of the propriety of bachelor Kasich sharing a Washington townhouse with his male chief-of-staff for several years while the staffer drew a large government salary. He nonetheless won the 1996 election. Kasich married in March 1997, at the age of 44.

To his credit, Congressman Kasich was "approachable" about cutting public subsidies for timber and grazing operations.  A lot of public resources are spent* to help just a few small industries in Western states.

 

*wasted

I asked Strickland what he could do about promoting education, re-training

and skills development for Ohio workers to make the state more competitive. He said projects like 3-C rail will be labor intensive and will involve retraining skilled workers like automakers. He didn't say how they would do it, though.

 

I think over-all, Strickland's a great politician. Kasich isn't really known for much. He's good at balancing the budget but has a checkered past (given a job at Lehman Bros. investment banking division and that will surely be used against him). He seems kinda dim-witted to me.

Here's Kasich in his own words. Doesn't seem too smarmy: http://www.kasichforohio.com/site/c.hpIJKWOCJqG/b.5807617/k.30DF/Devoted_to_a_New_Day_for_Ohio.htm?msource=JK022310EM&tr=y&auid=5972320

 

He says "...so if I could shine up the state, if I could make Cleveland one of the great cities which it once was. If we could have Cincinnati and Toledo and Youngstown and Steubenville and Columbus realize their potential, that would be worth all of the effort. We could build a 21st century Ohio that is great with manufacturing, with techonology, with the ability to use our universities to produce research and development to advance all of our companies. Generate jobs, generate this excitement, and keep the young people here..."

Strickland ahead of Kasich in poll

Wednesday,  February 24, 2010 - 2:51 AM

By Darrel Rowland

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Deadlocked with his GOP rival three months ago, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland now has forged a 5-point edge over Republican John Kasich, a new poll shows.  However, Strickland's lead of 44 percent to 39 percent in the 2010 governor's race is barely outside the margin of sampling error in the Quinnipiac University survey released yesterday.

 

Perhaps the more significant measure is that more than three out of every five Ohioans don't know Kasich, the former congressman from Genoa Township.  "The next eight months until Election Day will see a race between Gov. Strickland and John Kasich to define John Kasich," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Connecticut university's polling institute.  "Whoever does a better job will likely win the election."

 

The telephone poll from Feb. 16 through Feb. 21 of 1,662 randomly chosen Ohio voters has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.  The full poll is at www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/oh/oh02232010.doc.

 

Full article at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/24/strickland-ahead-of-kasich-in-poll.html?sid=101

Here's Kasich in his own words. Doesn't seem too smarmy: http://www.kasichforohio.com/site/c.hpIJKWOCJqG/b.5807617/k.30DF/Devoted_to_a_New_Day_for_Ohio.htm?msource=JK022310EM&tr=y&auid=5972320

 

He says "...so if I could shine up the state, if I could make Cleveland one of the great cities which it once was. If we could have Cincinnati and Toledo and Youngstown and Steubenville and Columbus realize their potential, that would be worth all of the effort. We could build a 21st century Ohio that is great with manufacturing, with techonology, with the ability to use our universities to produce research and development to advance all of our companies. Generate jobs, generate this excitement, and keep the young people here..."

 

Ouch, I guess Youngstown and Steubenville have more potential than Akron and Dayton?

Yeah, he was playing with fire there. More people had to have felt dissed than complemented or energized for his campaign.

I voted for Strickland in 2006.  I don't think he's done a terrible job, he's done okay given the problems he's faced, but I don't see him as being the man to really turn this state around.  We need a Governor and an Administration that understands what we're dealing with here in competing with other states.  Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

Though I'd prefer it if Kasich doesn't say one word either way about guns, gays, or gods, I'm sure he's probably going to have to show concern (even if feigned) to get the groups that care about those issues on board.

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it".  While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

As I type this post, I see an ad for Kasich below. It reads "turn Ohio red today". This is exactly the problem. I could care less if Ohio is red, blue or purple. I want a leader who doesn't pander to political extremes. Ads like this lower the level of discussion and turn campaigns into name-calling events instead of debating real issues.

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it". While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

I've never understood this line of attack (on *any* public figure).  "Interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems?"  The fairer reading of this is that they simply don't prioritize problems the way you do, or (in some cases) they characterize as a problem what you see as a benefit and vice versa.  If you're an economic liberal don't see high taxes and regulatory burdens as problems, then of course you'll be less inclined to see the Republicans as "interested in solving real problems," but I can fairly say that *they* see themselves as addressing real problems.  Ditto if you're a social liberal and don't see abortion, affirmative action, and gun control as problems.

 

As I type this post, I see an ad for Kasich below. It reads "turn Ohio red today". This is exactly the problem. I could care less if Ohio is red, blue or purple. I want a leader who doesn't pander to political extremes. Ads like this lower the level of discussion and turn campaigns into name-calling events instead of debating real issues.

 

Yes, it's almost as vague as "hope" and "change."

So "turn Ohio red today" is almost as vague as "hope and change."  I'll grant that hope and change are extremely vague... but turning Ohio red isn't.  That's a stated aspiration for one-party rule.  Nothing vague about it.

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it".  While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

I've never understood this line of attack (on *any* public figure).  "Interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems?"  The fairer reading of this is that they simply don't prioritize problems the way you do, or (in some cases) they characterize as a problem what you see as a benefit and vice versa.  If you're an economic liberal don't see high taxes and regulatory burdens as problems, then of course you'll be less inclined to see the Republicans as "interested in solving real problems," but I can fairly say that *they* see themselves as addressing real problems.  Ditto if you're a social liberal and don't see abortion, affirmative action, and gun control as problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I type this post, I see an ad for Kasich below. It reads "turn Ohio red today". This is exactly the problem. I could care less if Ohio is red, blue or purple. I want a leader who doesn't pander to political extremes. Ads like this lower the level of discussion and turn campaigns into name-calling events instead of debating real issues.

 

Yes, it's almost as vague as "hope" and "change."

 

What is vague about "Turn Ohio Red"?

 

I don't like it because it is divisive and leads to a mentality where scorecards are kept and where good government is not the goal. 

 

"Hope" or "Change" is hardly divisive. I agree with you that it is vague. I'll take vague political slogans over 'us vs. them' tactics any day.

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it". While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

I've never understood this line of attack (on *any* public figure). "Interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems?" The fairer reading of this is that they simply don't prioritize problems the way you do, or (in some cases) they characterize as a problem what you see as a benefit and vice versa. If you're an economic liberal don't see high taxes and regulatory burdens as problems, then of course you'll be less inclined to see the Republicans as "interested in solving real problems," but I can fairly say that *they* see themselves as addressing real problems. Ditto if you're a social liberal and don't see abortion, affirmative action, and gun control as problems.

 

 

 

Look a little deeper. What frustrates me is the habitual blanket statements that ignore the particular situation and offer a generic cut and pasted strategy as a solution. If that is their understanding of how to approach real problems, then that is real problem.  I'd love to cut taxes, but we need to do it with a well-crafted strategy.

"Hope and change" is divisive as well.... for those who don't want it and are content with the status quo.  But it is vague... good thing it was just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform.

"Hope and change" is divisive as well.... for those who don't want it and are content with the status quo.  But it is vague... good thing it was just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform.

 

There is some divisiveness to it, but not much in comparison to "turn ohio red". Hope and change was in reference to GW Bush who was as unpopluar as any president was at the time that Obama was using that slogan.

"Hope and change" is divisive as well.... for those who don't want it and are content with the status quo.  But it is vague... good thing it was just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform.

 

I presume that "Turn Ohio Red" is just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform, too.

 

It's also potentially unintentionally comedic, as "red" used to be (and still often is) associated with communism.  "Turn Ohio Red" would mean something very different coming from the Workers World Party than the GOP.  :-)

^I didn't think of it that way. That's funny.

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it".  While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

I've never understood this line of attack (on *any* public figure).  "Interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems?"  The fairer reading of this is that they simply don't prioritize problems the way you do, or (in some cases) they characterize as a problem what you see as a benefit and vice versa.  If you're an economic liberal don't see high taxes and regulatory burdens as problems, then of course you'll be less inclined to see the Republicans as "interested in solving real problems," but I can fairly say that *they* see themselves as addressing real problems.  Ditto if you're a social liberal and don't see abortion, affirmative action, and gun control as problems.

 

 

Look a little deeper. What frustrates me is the habitual blanket statements that ignore the particular situation and offer a generic cut and pasted strategy as a solution. If that is their understanding of how to approach real problems, then that is real problem.  I'd love to cut taxes, but we need to do it with a well-crafted strategy.

 

I don't think blanket statements are any more endemic to any political party than another.  Also, when the competition at the ballot box is between two different philosophies of government, blanket statements are still relevant because they inform the listener about the principles and priorities of the speaker (assuming, of course, that the speaker is being up front about those, which is a whole separate question).  If I say that I'm in favor of market-based school reform, you might not know exactly what I mean--but you can pretty much bet that the teachers' unions will be supporting my opponent from the moment that statement leaves my lips.  If I say that I'm looking for a "smart on crime" approach that "takes into account the costs to the government and to society of having so many people behind bars," you may not know my stance on marijuana decriminalization, three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, or many other specific issues, but you can make reasonable estimations about those things as compared with my opponent who trumpets a "tough on crime" line--without reading 10,000 words from each of us on the topic.

I don't think anyone should campaign on a platform of cutting taxes, unless they clearly explain where they will be cutting services to account for the (at least temporarily) decreased revenue.  Even if you are a die-hard believer in trickle-down economics, you would still acknowledge that it requires patience and time, lot's of both. 

 

Of course, if you are like me, I prefer tax credits to tax cuts.  It allows the government to place reinvestment conditions on the money it is giving back. 

Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it". While I thought Strickland would do better, I don't see how the republicans offer anything better. The frustrating part about Ohio republicans is that they seem to be more interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems.

 

I've never understood this line of attack (on *any* public figure). "Interested in ideology and not interested in solving real problems?" The fairer reading of this is that they simply don't prioritize problems the way you do, or (in some cases) they characterize as a problem what you see as a benefit and vice versa. If you're an economic liberal don't see high taxes and regulatory burdens as problems, then of course you'll be less inclined to see the Republicans as "interested in solving real problems," but I can fairly say that *they* see themselves as addressing real problems. Ditto if you're a social liberal and don't see abortion, affirmative action, and gun control as problems.

 

 

Look a little deeper. What frustrates me is the habitual blanket statements that ignore the particular situation and offer a generic cut and pasted strategy as a solution. If that is their understanding of how to approach real problems, then that is real problem. I'd love to cut taxes, but we need to do it with a well-crafted strategy.

 

I don't think blanket statements are any more endemic to any political party than another. Also, when the competition at the ballot box is between two different philosophies of government, blanket statements are still relevant because they inform the listener about the principles and priorities of the speaker (assuming, of course, that the speaker is being up front about those, which is a whole separate question). If I say that I'm in favor of market-based school reform, you might not know exactly what I mean--but you can pretty much bet that the teachers' unions will be supporting my opponent from the moment that statement leaves my lips. If I say that I'm looking for a "smart on crime" approach that "takes into account the costs to the government and to society of having so many people behind bars," you may not know my stance on marijuana decriminalization, three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, or many other specific issues, but you can make reasonable estimations about those things as compared with my opponent who trumpets a "tough on crime" line--without reading 10,000 words from each of us on the topic.

 

That is precisely the problem with the current system. Candidates sing the party line. It divides the electorate rather than engage them in a thoughtful discussion. You may like it, but I think that dumbs down the conversation and turns the election into a high school rally.