Most political observers seem to have concluded that longtime Indiana Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton lost in the primary mostly because he was an entrenched incument who thought he could get away with supporting outrageously generous perks for legislators. The possible effect of the highly organized effort of right-to-life forces for Garton's opponent, Greg Walker, is downplayed. Nationally known columnist David Broder thinks so little of those activists that he does not even mention them.
Think about it: An issue requiring individual voters to hold on to their discontent and remember to take it with them into the voting booth is given more weight than a get-out-the-vote effort by passionate people who have demonstrated time and again they they care enough about this one issue to make it matter in elections.
If you focus on the wrong dynamics, you are likely to learn the wrong lesson. Broder brings up the Indiana case only to springboard to his real point, which is the electorate's search for "authenticity" in presidential candidates:
The voters can sniff hypocrisy and spot what is synthetic about a candidate. They also can accept disagreement with a politician's policy views if they believe he is genuine in his convictions.
Yes, up to a point. But positions matter, the issues matter, philosophy and core beliefs matter. If John McCain, mentioned almost lovingly in the Broder piece, ends up being the Republican candidate, his reputation as a "straight shooter" will carry him only so far. As election day draws closer, voters will start thinking about what he's actually shooting at and what he might hit.
Comments
"If you focus on the wrong dynamics, you are likely to learn the wrong lesson."
Absolutely. And liberals in particular often spin the dynamics in hopes of redefining the lesson in public.
Take for example the Democrats' 2004 loss. We heard them afterward saying Americans voted against their interests and that Mr. and Mrs. Kerry proved to be weak on the campaign trail.
Of course millions of right-to-life people voted against Kerry, millions of Second Amendment defenders voted against Kerry, gay marriage opponents voted against Kerry, welfare state opponents voted against Kerry, and so on and so on.
But the Democrats indulge in misdirection and disguise so they don't have to change their own failed agenda.
Whatever you say about Bush, he was far more authentic than Kerry could hope to be given his gun-hating, equivocating, compromising and anti-military background. Liberal Hillary will be as bad or worse -- she's no moderate, but she's suddenly playing one on TV, and that's as far from authenticity, and the truth, as you can get.
On the Republican side, McCain is too liberal on too many issues. Some days I'm not sure that Zell Miller isn't more conservative than our Senator McCain.