I didn’t go, but Republican gubernatorial candidate Roy Brown and newly minted running mate Steve Daines showed up at the Capitol yesterday for a new round of making the rounds, and they said a few things that highlight well the politics of the day:
“Montanans want and need leaders who can take the initiative,” said Brown…”That means electing leaders that say what they mean and mean what they say.”
Daines…said, “We don’t talk about developing Montana’s resources just for the sake of getting in the newspaper or on TV.”
“We need to stop talking and start delivering results in this state,” Daines said.
Amen to that. With Born Again Obamania sweeping the nation, I’m not sure results are what people are after, but still, at least I know I’m not the only one who couldn’t give a snail dart’s ass about the hope for change or the change for hope or whatever hackneyed phrase is motivating the masses these days.
Comments 12
Talking about results is no different than talking about change or hope; none of them mean anything when spoken of, only when acted on. At this stage, these are all just words, and I think it is silly of you to assert that talk of results is one bit better than talk of change, which is arguably just a particular kind of result.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶Damn, apparently the saved info here is vastly outdated. That is not my e-mail address or my site url anymore.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 1:26 pm ¶I don’t disagree; should these guys be elected we’ll see if they put their money where there mouth is. Still, soaring rhetoric only serves to set off my BS meter. I prefer a candidate who says, “I’m going to do X,Y, and Z, and this is why. If you like that, then vote for me”. The appeal to emotion just gives me a headache, even though it works quite well.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 2:29 pm ¶Yeah, the only problem for me is that the Presidential candidates who are more specific tend to piss me off with their specifics more often than not.
So I’m perfectly willing to “roll the dice” with my vote on someone who’s not being specific.
I like hope. I like change. Sold!!
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 7:04 pm ¶Steve, I think you’re more masochistic than I am. It’s a lot easier to be pissed about the choices I have than to actually buy into something that will just end up pissing me off anyway.
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 9:11 pm ¶Doug,
If you are only getting your information on Obama’s positions from 30 second spots on Fox news, then I would expect you to think that it is all a bunch of hot air. Have you been to his site? Have you watched the recent debates? What is your basis of calling it empty rhetoric?
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 11:31 pm ¶Well Shane, actually I said I disliked soaring rhetoric, but it really isn’t much of a leap from there to the empty kind, especially in the context that I used it. I have been to his site, I have watched some of the debates, and I know that he certainly does have some very concrete proposals that I disagree with heartily.
The problem is that the vehicle he is using to promote those ideas are generalities that, to me at least, lend themselves to an avoidance of substantive debate. As I scroll through his speeches, I read how, if I’m generally opposed to Obama, then I must be against hope, change, peace, opportunity, equality, and on and on and on. It’s a neat and effective trick, especially because he delivers it so well.
Now, I’m sure there are those out there who actually think I am opposed to such things, so it appeals and motivates that group (his base). On the other hand, it also appeals to those who do get their information from 30 second sound bites (most of America), because it’s generic and it sounds so good.
Anyway, that’s my long winded answer to your brief question. For what it’s worth, and for better or for worse, I believe he will be our next president; so you’ll get to hear me complain about this for a long, long while (unless I melt my fingers off during my welding class).
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 11:06 am ¶I agree with Doug here wholeheartedly.
Posted 29 Feb 2008 at 7:07 pm ¶I have been to Obama’s web site and have read through his positions and proposals. For the most part, it’s not a great place to research his true stance, it’s mainly just rhetoric. Take for example his stance on handguns. I suggest all Montanans that use and enjoy handguns research his position on them, the media sure isn’t doing it……. and it’s not pretty.
Seems politics anymore these days is all about the strut and the posturing.
And the touchy-feely “emotion” angle is way too reminiscent of how things were in the 70’s. Next thing you know, we’ll be back to wearing plaid pants, mood rings and puka shells.
I’ve got a feeling that Obama will get this one too.
Oh well, it’s not like I’ve got a real choice in the matter anyway. I’m just not on board with any of them this time around, democrat or republican.
Posted 01 Mar 2008 at 2:28 am ¶B. Hussein Obama as president. Be serious. The adults will be voting in November.
Posted 01 Mar 2008 at 8:49 pm ¶Nice call MixMaster. Love the inuendo.
Posted 02 Mar 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶oh wait, let me not confuse innuendo with blatant bigotry.
Posted 02 Mar 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶Post a Comment