« Campaign bits | Main | Elections and Audiences »
Why do you support __________?
I have an open question for anyone who supports anyone besides Howard Dean for the 2004 Democratic nomination: What evidence do you have that your candidate will keep his promises? Now that all the candidates are repeating themes that Howard Dean established over the last year, what makes you think any of them are doing more than mouthing what the people have shown they want to hear?
Here's another piece of information to consider: On his Sunday morning talk show, George Stephanopolous was interviewing Terry McAuliffe and both agreed that "Washington insiders breathed a huge sigh of relief when Kerry won again in New Hampshire." Now why would "Washington insiders" be so relieved to see Kerry doing well? Do you want a candidate that pleases the "insiders" and is himself the consummate insider)? Have the "insiders" been doing such a great job for you?
Again I ask: If you're not supporting Howard Dean, what evidence do you have that your candidate will do, or even really try to do, anything he has promised?
Posted February 1, 2004 11:07 AM | election 2004
I'm sorry, Amimb, but I can't read your blog anymore. It's stopped being an interesting chronicle of a law student's life, and has devolved into a mindless arm of the Dean campaign.
I don't yet know who I will support in the upcoming election, but I know that your brand of activism has diminished the likelihood I'll vote for Dean. Like many other Dean supporters, you have started to sound whiny and annoying.
In short, think about your audience before your post. Your proselytizing is hurting more than helping, imho.
Posted by: Another 1L at February 1, 2004 01:52 PM
I would trust John Edwards because his message gas not deviated at all over the course of this campaign.
However, I have to say that changing message is not always a bad thing, nor does it indicate poor character on the part of the candidate. For example, by your standard, would HoHo's makeover post-Iowa diminish his standing in your eyes? Or what about his reversion back to attack dog from lap dog? Hmm.. maybe it is your boy who changes his cloak a la Gore?
I would also question how he can maintain his anti-insider rhetoric after hiring a consumate Washington Insider to rescue his campaign? (Of course, the main reason he can continue on this logically inconsistent path is because his supporters are like lemmings.) Running as an outsider with an insider at the helm is sort of like the son of a Senator, sitting VP running as a populist. Maybe Gore endorsed HoHo because he saw a little bit of himself in the Doctor?
Posted by: justin at February 1, 2004 02:02 PM
Another 1L: I'm sorry to hear that you're not enjoying my posts recently. If you have in the past gained some value, however small, from my comments about law school, I would humbly direct your attention to this page, which collects only those posts that relate to law school in some way.
Justin: I haven't followed Edwards too closely, but I think you're right -- he's been pretty consistent and his message is a good one. I'd prefer Edwards to Kerry, if it comes down to that. You're also right that it's impossible to ask candidates to never change their minds. We need more politicians w/the courage to change their minds when the facts warrant. For example, Bush should have changed his mind about attacking Iraq when the inspectors kept telling him there was no imminent threat. However, I have serious doubts about whether Kerry's shifts are anything more than opportunism...
Posted by: ambimb at February 1, 2004 06:24 PM
I'm not sure if I can think of any candidate in any major election who has ever met this standard (done all that he or she promised during the election campaign after winning office), no matter how well-intentioned he or she was. I can think of plenty of broken promises, however.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to hold the other candidates to a standard that I doubt that Dean will be able to achieve himself, if elected.
Posted by: transmogriflaw at February 1, 2004 11:15 PM
Well, no. We can't expect a candidate to do all he/she promised, but I'd like to think we should expect a candidate to do everything he/she can to keep those promises. From where I sit, Kerry's just like so many other politicians -- he's just saying what he thinks people want to hear so he can get elected, but he has no intention of really doing any of the things he talks about.
IOW: Kerry's record suggests that he's a lot of conversation, no action. Dean's record suggests he's a little less conversation, a lot more action. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president whose record suggests he'll stick to his campaign promises as much as he can?
Posted by: ambimb at February 2, 2004 05:50 AM
Definitely agree with you with respect to Senator Hair. A lot of his "work" smacks of opportunism. And, although he may not be quite the camera hog that Chuck Schumer is, he certainly has a tendency for flash over substance.
Posted by: justin at February 2, 2004 01:44 PM
