Continuing the discussion...
I'm in the office a little early this morning because I've got a number of meetings today, but I wanted to take a moment and jump on this latest conversation here about sizzle vs. substances.
Part of the problem, especially this year, is the way the primaries are being stacked. There is no way any of the candidates can campaign the way they're being forced to this year without the "flash" and trying to get as much publicity focused on them as they possibly can.
Which is one of the reasons why I like New Hampshire and Iowa so much. It's different in those two states.
The citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa take their role as "first in the nation" very seriously. I was in New Hampshire a year and a half ago with former VA Gov. Mark Warner and watched as he was "interviewed" by workers at a dairy farm.
I was in New Hampshire a couple of months ago with Chris Dodd and watched how people came out because they wanted to "see him." They told me they wanted to see if he was really the man they've seen on TV in the debates. They wanted to kick his tires.
Voters in those two states aren't very interested in the flash..thus, the candidates approach those two states differently than they do the other primary states.
The rest of us don'tget that same opportunity for the retail politicking that goes on in New Hampshire and Iowa...we just get served up the same old sizzle.
I think, personally, it would be a shame to alter the primary and caucus set up that would result in Iowa and New Hampshire losing what they've got.
Part of the problem, especially this year, is the way the primaries are being stacked. There is no way any of the candidates can campaign the way they're being forced to this year without the "flash" and trying to get as much publicity focused on them as they possibly can.
Which is one of the reasons why I like New Hampshire and Iowa so much. It's different in those two states.
The citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa take their role as "first in the nation" very seriously. I was in New Hampshire a year and a half ago with former VA Gov. Mark Warner and watched as he was "interviewed" by workers at a dairy farm.
I was in New Hampshire a couple of months ago with Chris Dodd and watched how people came out because they wanted to "see him." They told me they wanted to see if he was really the man they've seen on TV in the debates. They wanted to kick his tires.
Voters in those two states aren't very interested in the flash..thus, the candidates approach those two states differently than they do the other primary states.
The rest of us don'tget that same opportunity for the retail politicking that goes on in New Hampshire and Iowa...we just get served up the same old sizzle.
I think, personally, it would be a shame to alter the primary and caucus set up that would result in Iowa and New Hampshire losing what they've got.
posted by Ray Hackett at 7:40 AM
4 Comments:
Hope it's not too late to add a 'voter question' (in this case for one of the Norwich forums you are hosting in the nearly-immediate future).
Wednesday's Bulletin on the Planning Department's report card on "The Plan" five years on.
For those seeking a seat on the Norwich City Council, as incumbent, newcomer or member of the Commission on the City Plan:
What is/are your impression(s) of this evaluation and how do you, or would you, define or re-define the various roles of those listed in the report who have speaking parts in the movie of economic development we are making?
Who needs more lines--
Who needs fewer--
Who is or should be the director and who is in charge of the script?
Are we making a tragedy, a musical, a comedy or a Western?
What does a happy ending look like?
I'd also ask in ANY of the towns...how can you cooperate with neighboring towns to streamline services and save money? Having grown up in VA, not CT, the notion of "home rule" where a small state like CT has 169 different governments doing their own thing seems like an incredible waste in time and money.
Back to the presidential campaign, I agree that the discussion is much more substantive in Iowa and NH and that those states need to be at the forefront of the primary process because of that. Yet the information the rest of us get from those those two states are simply the candidates judging a pig show in Iowa or standing before a small group in a NH firehouse meeting room. Still no substance.
And as an aside I was very disappointed that Mark Warner decided not to run. He certainly had some appeal across political party lines.
I agree that NH and Iowa have a unique method of retail politics and, over the years, have been an excellent testing ground for presidential candidates. However, it would be better if another state, more diversified in population than NH and Iowa, were added to the 'first in the nation' list. All of the other states should be in rotating regions that will take turns being the next states to primary.
wtfdnucsailor,
I like the idea of rotating the primaries--perhaps some kind of a lottery drawing that varies per election cycle so the same three or four states aren't always the first ones?
I'm smiling because, with everything going on locally and regionally (and 'amen!' mal. I grew up in NJ where corruption is an artform but where county government trumps home rule, too), we can attempt solutions to national issues.
Who's up for a few global problems?
Bring 'em on, ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home