Bad Choices and Assumed Motive

A big problem with the President’s opinion deriding those that have reservations of the proposed Mosque blocks from the World Trade Center Ground Zero is the ignorant way he assigns the motives of those who think differently based on his own viewpoint. It would be different if every single person, 70 percent of the country by recent polling, thought exactly the same or only opposed the construction without saying anything or by making disgusting statements. No matter how much some may want to believe that all the opposition is malevolent, the facts just don’t support that conclusion. Many issues are complicated and anyone who ignores contrasting arguments doesn’t want to debate because it’s easier to demonize by playing on emotion rather than defending the abstract.

Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.

Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?

Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.

The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.

The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.