I wonder how much is the filter you're watching them through. That's a fair assessment. I really didn't like any of them. I'm not entirely sure how anyone can be completely 100% impartial. But I do indeed do my homework; it's my responsibility to do so.
And so this was the website for my state's new governor.
This was the website my state's new senator (which as you can see was full of ads, not even a section on what stances he had).
And this was the website for my state's new attorney general.
The only one who seemed to have much of a 'plan' to do anything was the governor and I was not only confused on what he even wanted to do (and got no answers when I asked questions via tweets, FB posts/comments, and emails), but I opposed some of it. However, I am not a fan of Asa anyway, having seen his past track record and the cronyism in Arkansas & the surrounding region with regards to him & his family (he was former undersecretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security, appointed by G.W.B.)
And as for the new senator, well, he has a god-awful track record. Tweeting, FB posts/comments, and emails got me NOWHERE with his campaign. The attorney general's campaign was much of the same - stonewalling anyone whose account stuff they could see leaned left. Exercises in futility. *shrug*
Here the D candidate (the AG) had some ethical issues that never seemed to come up in the election. She came within 1.5% of the winner - not the sort of outcome I'd expect, at least from an informed electorate who bothered to even just google her.
She is the AG and had been county DA for a number of years before. The state has had persistent issues with tainted evidence. No case seemed too tainted for her to defend - as county DA in an alleged child abuse case where all evidence was heavily tainted she persisted in maintaining convictions even to the point of appealing to the governor (Swift, ca 2002) to not release wronged defendants. This is only one case - there have been others.
Alleged child abusers aren't popular.
Currently we have a drug lab scandal... that's not her fault, but her office's reaction has been to obstruct the sort of work needed to review tainted cases.
In the case of the chief executive, I think you can be forgiven to overlook some personal peccadillos like incompetence and lack of integrity in exchange for getting a leader of your same tribe. I understand how a Democrat could think her policy goals can be presumed to be better than the policies of the Candidate from the other tribe.
I just couldn't assert the same about State Auditor. I don't even know why that position even has a political affiliation. It's like saying "partisan journalist". If you are doing your job right, your personal views about preferred policy will never come up.
How would a democrat (or republican) trust what her policy goals really are if she repeatedly demonstrates lack of integrity in the job she's currently elected to do?
State Auditors are political jobs like any other elected or executive position. Whether the occupant is able to resist to some degree probably depends on their personality. It's an elected position to give it a gloss of independence. The (unstated?) goal of state auditor like any other administration official of the same party as the executive is to paper over any irregularities while pretending to examine the various departments books. Of the other party it's intended to expose politically useful scandal.
It really looks to me like your objections to these candidates are to their platforms. As such, it's really not appropriate to assume that the people voting for them *didn't* know what they were voting for. Sure, you checked them out, found them to be... well, republicans, and concluded that they sucked. But a lot of voters are republicans.
In general, repubilcans: Want their guns Want abortion stopped Want taxes lowered want industry and energy developed
Etcetera.
You've really presented nothing in particular to indicate that these aren't perfectly viable candidates to a typical, well informed, anti-obama republican.
Of course they knew what those candidates 'stood' for. But none of that has much to do with what the actual job entails. They are low-information voters because they do not know what the job these candidates are running for even entails, and how guns, abortion, and Christianity have nothing to do with it. Possibly lowered taxes, though the AG won't have much to do with that.
What is it that causes you to think that those voters were unaware of those factors?
Footnote here that 95% of voters in any election are "low information voters", so I am only debating the marginal voters that put the candidates over the top.
And so this was the website for my state's new governor.
This was the website my state's new senator (which as you can see was full of ads, not even a section on what stances he had).
And this was the website for my state's new attorney general.
The only one who seemed to have much of a 'plan' to do anything was the governor and I was not only confused on what he even wanted to do (and got no answers when I asked questions via tweets, FB posts/comments, and emails), but I opposed some of it. However, I am not a fan of Asa anyway, having seen his past track record and the cronyism in Arkansas & the surrounding region with regards to him & his family (he was former undersecretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security, appointed by G.W.B.)
And as for the new senator, well, he has a god-awful track record. Tweeting, FB posts/comments, and emails got me NOWHERE with his campaign. The attorney general's campaign was much of the same - stonewalling anyone whose account stuff they could see leaned left. Exercises in futility. *shrug*
Reply
She is the AG and had been county DA for a number of years before. The state has had persistent issues with tainted evidence. No case seemed too tainted for her to defend - as county DA in an alleged child abuse case where all evidence was heavily tainted she persisted in maintaining convictions even to the point of appealing to the governor (Swift, ca 2002) to not release wronged defendants. This is only one case - there have been others.
Alleged child abusers aren't popular.
Currently we have a drug lab scandal... that's not her fault, but her office's reaction has been to obstruct the sort of work needed to review tainted cases.
Perhaps that's being "strong on crime"?
Reply
I just couldn't assert the same about State Auditor. I don't even know why that position even has a political affiliation. It's like saying "partisan journalist". If you are doing your job right, your personal views about preferred policy will never come up.
Reply
State Auditors are political jobs like any other elected or executive position. Whether the occupant is able to resist to some degree probably depends on their personality. It's an elected position to give it a gloss of independence. The (unstated?) goal of state auditor like any other administration official of the same party as the executive is to paper over any irregularities while pretending to examine the various departments books. Of the other party it's intended to expose politically useful scandal.
Reply
In general, repubilcans:
Want their guns
Want abortion stopped
Want taxes lowered
want industry and energy developed
Etcetera.
You've really presented nothing in particular to indicate that these aren't perfectly viable candidates to a typical, well informed, anti-obama republican.
Reply
Reply
Footnote here that 95% of voters in any election are "low information voters", so I am only debating the marginal voters that put the candidates over the top.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment