Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Warning for Game-Playing Political Candidates

Why would someone running for political office not want people to know where he or she stands on the issues?

It concerns me when a person who is running for office is asked a question and the person asking the question is told to give the candidate a call so they can go over their questions privately.

How would a person like this react if the same question is asked of them in a public form? Would they tell the person asking the question in that public forum to come and talk to them about it later in private? I hardly think so.

It becomes even more disturbing when the political candidate is actively seeking support from a group of people but won’t answer certain questions posted by this group of people. Why in the world would I want to support you if you won’t tell me what you think about a particular issue in public? What are you hiding?

The obvious answer doesn't make the matter any better. The obvious answer is that because some of the questions are of a controversial nature, the candidate does not want to come across in a way that might lose him votes. He might think that some of his would-be supporters might not support him if he comes out for or against a particular issue in a certain way.

Problem with this is that he is not going to gain votes by behaving in this manner. He is going to lose the support and the votes of the people he is actively trying to court.

Let me put this into perspective. Let’s say, for instance, that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is a very important issue to you. It is equally important that a person is very clear about where they stand on that issue. A person running for any given political office comes to you asking for your support. You ask them, in a public forum, where they stand on the issue of legalization. That candidate tells you that he or she would rather talk to you privately about it and asks you to call them. Does this not seem suspicious at all to you? It does to me.

If a person is not willing to be public about where they stand on an issue, any given issue, what is to say that this person is to be trusted with how they will vote on that particular issue.

Going back to the legalization scenario. If a person running for office will not tell you in public whether or not he or she supports legalization, how can he or she be trusted to vote for or against the issue when it comes up for a vote. If this person will not come public about an issue in order to get themselves elected, why would they not also vote based on the popularity of that issue at the time a vote comes up if they are elected? What is to keep them from voting based on that issue’s popularity just to keep themselves in office? If you can’t trust a person to come clean and speak out for or against an issue, how can they be trusted to vote for or against that same issue?

Personally, I cannot and will not support a political candidate that is not willing to stand up for an issue the voters be damned. If you personally feel one way about an issue but won’t speak up for it and when it comes to vote you only vote the popular way on that issue, you are not standing up for your beliefs. You are doing one thing and one thing only. You are playing politics.

I do not want more people in office that are just playing politics. I want people in office that are willing to speak up and fight for an issue. Not some namby pamby wanna-be liberty candidate. These people are almost as bad as those candidates that claim to be pro-liberty but whose stance on many of the issues is absolutely not pro-liberty.

In Oklahoma, this sort of thing seems more prevalent in the GOP than it does with the Democrats. It's almost as any given Republican political candidates is afraid to "come out" on certain issues because they are afraid they will offend someone. Candidates of the Democrat Party, in general, don't seem to have this problem. It could be partly because they are not the party that is in power right now. Or it could be that the candidates in that party just simply have more courage than those in the GOP. And why is it that within the party of "liberty" there are more candidates willing to come out publicly about issues that matter to real liberty while many candidates in the Democrat Party are willing to. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the party of liberty? In Oklahoma, it sure doesn't seem that way. When did the roles get reversed?re in the GOP than it does with the Democrats. It's almost as any given Republican political candidates is afraid to "come out" on certain issues because they are afraid they will offend someone. Candidates of the Democrat Party, in general, don't seem to have this problem. It could be partly because they are not the party that is in power right now. Or it could be that the candidates in that party just simply have more courage than those in the GOP. And why is it that within the party of "liberty" there are more candidates willing to come out publicly about issues that matter to real liberty while many candidates in the Democrat Party are willing to. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the party of liberty? In Oklahoma, it sure doesn't seem that way. When did the roles get reversed?

This makes little sense to me. The "standard-bearer" for the liberty movement within the GOP was Ron Paul and he was never afraid to say what he thought in a public forum. In my opinion, any Republican that claims to be pro-liberty and is running for any political office, should use Dr. Paul's example as a guide on how to behave as a political candidate. Granted, he didn't get very far as far as getting elected to President goes, but look at the impact that he had! This guy was in Congress for over 20 years! That has to mean something. And look at the movement he started! The tide is turning in that direction. Don't hide behind political rhetoric. Say what you feel and say it like you mean it!

I want to see political candidates that are not afraid to tell the public how they feel about an issue. I do not want to see political candidates that hide behind talking points and rhetoric that will keep their base supporters happy. If your supporters don’t like how you feel about a certain issue, than they aren't really your supporters to begin with.

This is a warning for all political candidates that are out there trying to gain the support of the real liberty movement. If you aren't willing to come public about your beliefs on real liberty issues, you are not worth our support and you just need to move along.

Where are the candidates that are willing to stand up for what they believe in? Where are the candidates that are willing to stand up for issues that might not be popular but are the right thing to do? And where are the candidates that are willing to do so in a public forum rather than behind closed doors or privately on the phone? Where are the candidates that are willing to go on record for these issues?

If you stand for something, I want to know that you stand for it and I want everybody to know you stand for it. I'm not stingy. I want everyone to share in that knowledge. If you stand for something why wouldn't you want the world to know it? If you don't want everybody to know that you stand for something, than you probably don't really stand for it in the first place. Again, you are playing politics.

Candidates that play politics make me sick and I have neither the patience nor the tolerance for candidates that are only in politics to play games.

Once again, you have been warned.

No comments:

Post a Comment