VA Govonor Race McDonnell ? Why can?t VA republicans find someone better?

[Vette73]

McDonnell blasted for controversial research paper

In 2006 George Allen (R) was supposed to win re-election easy and be a front runner for the republican POTUS ticket. Then he had to blow it.


Now McDonnell, whom I thought was doing real well in the polls, has this old paper come out. In it he says thing like how working women are "detrimental" to the family. The title of it alone is...
"The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade."

Of course he also went to Regent University, formerly known as CBN University, named by its founder Pat Robertson.

Don't know if he will be able to play this off and move forward but it really hurts his chances now.

 

[Craig234]

One important thing to note about politicians is who they ally with for backing, what powerful interests, who are so important to electability because we allow the monied interests to dominate our system by letting them donate far too much that ordinary citizens will not, and who are far less organized.

Another important thing to note about politicians is how their actual qualities are a smaller and smaller part of their electability as the power of the marketing increases.

The two points are connected.

So, you can end up with a bad politician, who will ally with the right powerful monied interests, transformed into a great guy by the expenseive marketing, getting office.

Why can't you do better? Because our system allows for those things that are more powerful than who is the best politician and the people don't unite and demand change.

In fact, ironically, it's a sort of self-supporting system - if the marketing works well, then people tend to *like* their bad politician, and don't want to fix the system.

This is one reason why polls show people tend to like their own Congressman - who has been marketed to them - and to hate all the others, who haven't.

Now go try to get people willing to put effort into demanding the reforms to address this. It's harder than you think.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Craig234
One important thing to note about politicians is who they ally with for backing, what powerful interests, who are so important to electability because we allow the monied interests to dominate our system by letting them donate far too much that ordinary citizens will not, and who are far less organized.

Another important thing to note about politicians is how their actual qualities are a smaller and smaller part of their electability as the power of the marketing increases.

The two points are connected.

So, you can end up with a bad politician, who will ally with the right powerful monied interests, transformed into a great guy by the expenseive marketing, getting office.

Why can't you do better? Because our system allows for those things that are more powerful than who is the best politician and the people don't unite and demand change.

In fact, ironically, it's a sort of self-supporting system - if the marketing works well, then people tend to *like* their bad politician, and don't want to fix the system.

This is one reason why polls show people tend to like their own Congressman - who has been marketed to them - and to hate all the others, who haven't.

Now go try to get people willing to put effort into demanding the reforms to address this. It's harder than you think.

You do understand that the resident Republicans will use exactly what you just said and apply it to Barack Obama, right?

 

[chucky2]

Point 1: Used to work at a place where our parking lot was right behind a daycares wood fence. The language coming from the kids on that playground was amazing...clearly having ones kid in that environment, instead of at home with a normal competant parent, was not a positive.

Point 2: My one cousin worked at two daycare's. The rediculousness of what she'd either have to deal with in behaviour from kids and parents, plus the staff at the one place, again is not another positive point for daycare.

So, without reading this "research" paper McDonnell wrote, I can already agree with this: It is far better to have one of the parents at home taking care of the kids, rather than abdicating that responsiblity and environment to daycare.

Traditionally women stay home and take care of the kids, men go off to work. I personally don't care who stays and who goes to work, but there is absolutely no way I'll be putting the kids in daycare when that time comes in my life, not if we can't help it. I'd rather drive a 20 year old rust bucket than dump my flesh and blood off.

Working women are detrimental to the family? I'd agree with that...if she's better suited than the man to stay at home and instead choses to work and thereby have someone else taking care of her kid(s), then I'd definitely agree with that...

<flame suit on>

Chuck

 

[lupi]

after suffering under kaine, I think you're going to need to see a sex film released to seriously hurt his chances.

 

[Hecubus2000]

This guy will make a great Gov. He has been a great AG and has done a lot of good for the state already and the opposition knows it. IMO he is a far superior candidate than Deeds.

 

[sandorski]

Most Families can't have a stay at home Parent without taking a serious Economic penalty.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Most Families can't have a stay at home Parent without taking a serious Economic penalty.

You'd be suprised what people can do if they learn to sacrifice for their children. Sacrificing luxuries so our kids will have it better is something our self-centered society has seemed to forgotten.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: sandorski
Most Families can't have a stay at home Parent without taking a serious Economic penalty.

You'd be suprised what people can do if they learn to sacrifice for their children. Sacrificing luxuries so our kids will have it better is something our self-centered society has seemed to forgotten.

Like I said, Economic Penalty.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: Craig234
One important thing to note about politicians is who they ally with for backing, what powerful interests, who are so important to electability because we allow the monied interests to dominate our system by letting them donate far too much that ordinary citizens will not, and who are far less organized.

Another important thing to note about politicians is how their actual qualities are a smaller and smaller part of their electability as the power of the marketing increases.

The two points are connected.

So, you can end up with a bad politician, who will ally with the right powerful monied interests, transformed into a great guy by the expenseive marketing, getting office.

Why can't you do better? Because our system allows for those things that are more powerful than who is the best politician and the people don't unite and demand change.

In fact, ironically, it's a sort of self-supporting system - if the marketing works well, then people tend to *like* their bad politician, and don't want to fix the system.

This is one reason why polls show people tend to like their own Congressman - who has been marketed to them - and to hate all the others, who haven't.

Now go try to get people willing to put effort into demanding the reforms to address this. It's harder than you think.

You do understand that the resident Republicans will use exactly what you just said and apply it to Barack Obama, right?

seems like he's complaining about the entire system, not republican vs democrat

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
You do understand that the resident Republicans will use exactly what you just said and apply it to Barack Obama, right?

They won't be entirely wrong.

The election of someone who was freer to act on behalf of the American people, like a John Kennedy or a Lyndon Johnson, are freak accidents.

In the case of Kennedy, it was his family wealth and his hard political work - in the years before the Presidential campaign, he was flying around the nation building supporters, while no other politician had anything like that effort - and his political skills to keep public support, that provided him freedom of movement, the freedom to tell Europe American was ending her support for our allies' brutal third-world colonial policies, to fight the steel industry when he thought it was right, to oppose financial industry exploitations.

With all that, Kennedy also won because he changed our nomination process, by shifting the selection out of the convention's back rooms into the primaries.

In the case of Johnson, he lacked those things, but was also an accident - selected for his demographics to be VP, and thrust into power by assassination.

The politicians who arrive 'through the system' tend to be better 'vetted', selected by allying with the powerful interests, who want the politician to put on a good populist act.

I'm sorry to say, for all of Obama's 'community organizer' background, his top private contributor was perhaps the worst financial company in the nation, Goldman Sachs.

Bill Clinton's policies following the lead of the same corporations is clear as well, the biggest financial industry deregulation was passed under him.

But this doesn't mean Obama is without good qualities, it's not black and white, it's a balance; I think the lessons in my post can apply to either party and should be weighed.

The question is, what will the people do to push Obama to represent them, and to fix the broken system that creates such pressure from the powerful interests on him?

There's a reason Obama, freidnly with the powerful interests, won the nomination while those who choose the public more were not 'serious candidates', like Kucinich.

Some of that are Obama's political appeal, but the backing of the powerful interests is a factor too.

As much as I disagree with him, it's fair to say the same issue affected Ron Paul. It doesn't come up as much for Republicans - there aren't that many who are not corporatists..

I suspect Obama has experience advisors telling him 'the facts of life' about how the power works, and where he is pressured to compromise, and he's not too opposed.

Bill Moyers the other night said he'd prefer to see Obama go down fighitng for the right policy than to win with a policy that's highly compromised.

I agree with Moyers, but it's not much consolation when the next George Bush is elected because that choice was made and the Democrat went down fighitng for right.

On the other hand, I think Obama can gain public support by being strong in his advocacy and giving people a clear reason to vote for him.

When the right applies what I said to Obama, it raises questions about Obama's qualities - and I'll put them up against any of the Republican candidates, Bush or Cheney.

And it is a good discussion, about the pressures Obama is under, that we see him compromisig with. The call for reform applies to the system with Obama or Bush.