I've long held that if you're going to roll the dice on a candidate for office, you roll them for the House or Senate. Why? Because if you choose wrong they are just one in one hundred or one in 435. If you look at Governor's races however, traditionally, myself included people vote safe. Because if you elect the wrong governor (or President for that matter) they are in a position that can obstruct real change.
For that reason, I voted for State Attorney General Bill McCollum in the Florida Republican Gubernatorial primary. He lost. To Rick Scott. An unknown outsider who spent 50 million dollars. It paid off. At about 10:45 my candidate, Mr. McCollum came out. Not to concede, but to inform his supporters that it was going to be a long night and there were still many votes to count. That might've made me feel good if I hadn't had the website for Miami Dade Supervisor of Elections in front of me as he was speaking. I could see that he couldn't make up the difference, so he had to know. I was watching my candidate refuse to concede defeat when all who were watching and crunching numbers knew it was over.
To date, Mr. McCollum will not endorse Mr. Scott. Ok. He questions his integrity and character and ethics. Fair enough. If he feels that strongly, there is no law that says he must endorse or support the man who ended his political career. But then again, by losing he ought to let the General Electorate decide the fate in November of the nominee Mr. Scott. Criticizing him and refusing to endorse clearly smacks of sour grapes and any effort to undermine him publicly will discredit Mr. McCollum.
If Mr. Scott's ethics are as poor as Mr. McCollum says they are does he think Alex Sink won't notice or seek to exploit? For that matter as a McCollum voter myself does he think I won't notice? Barring an earth shattering revelation I will likely vote for Mr. Scott without regret and I do not regret voting for Mr. McCollum. I would still prefer he'd won the primary. If on the other hand Mr. McCollum having choked on his sour grapes publicly undermines the nominee in November, I will rue the day I reflexively vote for the "safe" choice".
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
TOLERANCE and MUTUAL RESPECT
In the midst of the continuing debate on the mosque near ground zero the most annoying point is by those who preach tolerance. The idea of course is that to express a reasoned or for that matter unreasoned dissent is intolerant.
What is tolerance and why is it often used to squash dissent? Why is it frequently used to label those who exercise their right to free speech as hateful? Tolerance sounds great if you're the one granting it to another. It's not so hot if you are in fact the recipient of another's magnanimity in its offering. If I say to you, "Hey I can't stand you, but hey I'll put up with you anyway". Wow! What a great guy that I can "put up" with you huh?
Tolerance, however as a matter of history still has an implied sense of superiority. No society can be sustained as long as such a sentiment exists. It is a foundation built upon sand. A great society grounded in free principles provides all with the motive to live their lives consistent with their values and live a life with a force of character that rather than demanding tolerance, commands respect.
The proper criteria in determining the civilizational merits of a nation hinges on its citizens willingness to live in a state of mutual respect. It doesn't matter if we all agree or like each other. Mutual respect, not tolerance provides a solid foundation and is a mighty fine bridge over that which has divided since the dawn of man.
What is tolerance and why is it often used to squash dissent? Why is it frequently used to label those who exercise their right to free speech as hateful? Tolerance sounds great if you're the one granting it to another. It's not so hot if you are in fact the recipient of another's magnanimity in its offering. If I say to you, "Hey I can't stand you, but hey I'll put up with you anyway". Wow! What a great guy that I can "put up" with you huh?
Tolerance, however as a matter of history still has an implied sense of superiority. No society can be sustained as long as such a sentiment exists. It is a foundation built upon sand. A great society grounded in free principles provides all with the motive to live their lives consistent with their values and live a life with a force of character that rather than demanding tolerance, commands respect.
The proper criteria in determining the civilizational merits of a nation hinges on its citizens willingness to live in a state of mutual respect. It doesn't matter if we all agree or like each other. Mutual respect, not tolerance provides a solid foundation and is a mighty fine bridge over that which has divided since the dawn of man.
Monday, August 23, 2010
THE MOSQUE
We can all thank President Obama for elevating the Mosque (community center?) near Ground Zero in Manhattan to an issue of national importance. Putting aside the fact that the President addressed an issue beneath his office, why did he have to effectively take one side? Here's what he should've said:
"It has come to my attention that an effort to build a mosque in lower Manhattan
has drawn criticism of many New Yorkers and family members of 9/11 victims.
There is a right to worship freely and build houses of worship for that
purpose. However, I believe given the expressed concerns of the American public
on this subject that all concerned parties should accept New York Governor David
Patterson's effort to mediate. I support such an effort to reach a compromise
that addresses the concerns of interested and effected parties."
A statement like this would have accomplished the following.
1.) The President would have neutrally acknowleded the respective positions of all parties.
2.) He would have added the weight of the Presidency behind David Patterson and increased his position in reaching an accord.
3.) He would have affected an outcome through negotiation without taking sides and sullying the office of President.
4. He would've forced the hand of all parties to come to the table because to do otherwise would have undermined the public positions of each party.
But he didn't do that. The President cannot as a practical matter express himself on everything he deems of consequence. A President can move people without public expressions. The danger is that now what was a genuine outburst of emotion relevant to the proposed mosque's proximity to ground zero risks being subordinated by more extreme or opportunistic elements with less than savory objectives.
President Obama's remarks, which were prepared as part of a speech reflect poor political skills, skills which are necessary to achieve desired results with minimal insult. This was compounded by the White House's bizarre statement on polls relating to his faith. I disagree with President Obama on most issues which is fine, but as an American I think it is reasonable to expect a higher level of political acumen as a means of abating contentious affairs. The President's comments reflect an ignorance of the power of the Presidency. Obama, as is true of all Presidents, must understand that sometimes one can achieve a principled end without taking a principled public stand. Is it so much to ask that highest elected politician in the land possess a remedial knowledge in the art of politics?
"It has come to my attention that an effort to build a mosque in lower Manhattan
has drawn criticism of many New Yorkers and family members of 9/11 victims.
There is a right to worship freely and build houses of worship for that
purpose. However, I believe given the expressed concerns of the American public
on this subject that all concerned parties should accept New York Governor David
Patterson's effort to mediate. I support such an effort to reach a compromise
that addresses the concerns of interested and effected parties."
A statement like this would have accomplished the following.
1.) The President would have neutrally acknowleded the respective positions of all parties.
2.) He would have added the weight of the Presidency behind David Patterson and increased his position in reaching an accord.
3.) He would have affected an outcome through negotiation without taking sides and sullying the office of President.
4. He would've forced the hand of all parties to come to the table because to do otherwise would have undermined the public positions of each party.
But he didn't do that. The President cannot as a practical matter express himself on everything he deems of consequence. A President can move people without public expressions. The danger is that now what was a genuine outburst of emotion relevant to the proposed mosque's proximity to ground zero risks being subordinated by more extreme or opportunistic elements with less than savory objectives.
President Obama's remarks, which were prepared as part of a speech reflect poor political skills, skills which are necessary to achieve desired results with minimal insult. This was compounded by the White House's bizarre statement on polls relating to his faith. I disagree with President Obama on most issues which is fine, but as an American I think it is reasonable to expect a higher level of political acumen as a means of abating contentious affairs. The President's comments reflect an ignorance of the power of the Presidency. Obama, as is true of all Presidents, must understand that sometimes one can achieve a principled end without taking a principled public stand. Is it so much to ask that highest elected politician in the land possess a remedial knowledge in the art of politics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
