Based on Stone's method for selecting a 2008 Presidential candidate - eliminating candidates as they cross some kind of “categorical threshold,” - I submit that the primary political tactic ought to be noncommittal. Make the speeches, talk about change (but still make references to the Great America), and then hold your tongue before independents and moderates find something about your campaign they dislike.
People are more turned off by their turn-offs than turned on by their turn-ons.
I'm announcing my campaign for 2008 Presidency. I have absolutely no opinions and zero commitments. Don't agree with them? Well, I bet you don't disagree.
27 January 2008
Half the Battle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Unfortunately....or, perhaps, fortunately, you are a bit too young yet, my son. See the US Constitution. You must be 35 years old.
Haha, Stan this is definitely a problem with this method: It encourages candidates not to take any positions. One of the things I like about McCain is that he takes positions that I may not agree with but I respect his integrity. The same goes for Obama. A candidate is more than a collection of policies and statements (although Hillary Clinton seems to run like one). A candidate is also a personal story and a series of fundamental values. These transcend their policy positions. Nevertheless, in the specific examples I used in my post, the candidates in question are either too dishonest (Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton) or have policies that are too non-centrist (Ron Paul) for my tastes. The former case is a reflection of those candidates' character and leadership abilities. In the latter case, the policies are so radical that they actually overwhelm any considerations of the candidate's character.
I would still vote for you stanley :)
Post a Comment