Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Friday, January 11, 2008 8:28:21 PM
Are we really going to elect our next president based on sound bites?
Again?
Based on the reactions from the crowd, the Frank Luntz focus group afterwards, comments on the blogs here and elsewhere, apparently we are.
Fred Thompson, by most accounts, won last night's debate. He did so by going after Mike Huckabee and then the Iranians. All great theatrics, but short on substance. He's shown more substance and less style in other debates, particularly the ABC and previous Fox debates, so he's capable, but most people remember his previous best performance as standing up to the moderator in the last Iowa debate, so who can blame him for such moments? If you can't get noticed by giving the thoughtful, thorough answers, then you either go nowhere, or you resort to sound bites.
Right on his heels, if not neck and neck, in the style department last night, was Mike Huckabee. The difference between the two, however, is that Huckabee's candidacy, by far, has literally been conceived by the sound bite. He's followed and expanded the Bill Clinton tactic by going on the comedic shows, such as Leno, Letterman and the Colbert Report, while making the rounds of all the radio and TV talk shows. Granted, the other candidates have visited at least one of the late night talk show hosts, and have made numerous appearances elsewhere, and granted, Huckabee's campaign is supposed to be cash strapped, forcing him to get whatever cheap or free media he can get. However, if it weren't for the style over substance, would he be doing as well as he is?
Between his "the very next thing they'll see is the gates of Hell" line (something which sounded an awful lot like an early stump sound bite by John McCain--"I'll follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of Hell") and Thompson's, "I guess they came close to seeing those virgins" quip, not only did the Iranians and terrorism in general take a pounding last night (which is fine), but so did substance. Maybe that's all that can take place in the time allotted, though everyone had a minute and a half opportunities to answer, far more than the half minute or minute they've been given in some of the other debates. And I didn't come away with a sense of just how serious they think the situation is, because of it. The thought of huge warships blowing up much smaller speed boats isn't exactly muscle flexing, either. It's more like squishing bugs.
Even Mitt Romney got in a crack about reading too many Ahmadinejad press releases in response to things Ron Paul was saying. But again, who could blame him? Both he and Rudy Guiliani seemed regulated to the background, because Thompson took opportunities to inject himself into the discussion without being asked, and Huckabee and McCain were either asked more questions,or spent more time rebutting.
In my opinion, so far, both Giuliani and Romney have been the substance over style candidates. Neither of their personalities, with some exceptions, lend themselves to the sound bite format. Romney might be taking things too seriously (he's definitely been over earnest at times), and Giuliani isn't as smooth a talker. Paul could be thrown into this category, too, regardless of how you feel about his stances and policies, though what's serious to him is ludicrous or hilarious to the rest, and thus, make for good sound bites. Thompson, as I said, does offer substance, but too often people wonder if he's sleeping or if he's truly interested in the job if he does.
I think if you were to ask people, both McCain and Huckabee come off as men of great conviction over the rest, with Thompson and Paul close behind. I'm sorry to say, though, as far as McCain and Huckabee are concerned thus far, it has to do with their sound bite moments--the style over substance.
I am not a strong advocate of presidents, or any elected official, for that matter, having grandiose proposals, particularly on the national level. I don't want to hear about programs, and I don't necessarily need to hear what they would do for the American people. Rather, I'd like to know what they won't do, and how much they won't be involved in my life. That said, I still need to know where they stand on the issues, and what their understanding of those issues are. Can't get those in a sound bite. You can get saber rattling and funny one liners and so forth, but you don't get to the know how the candidates are going to act when faced with the next crisis, or how they're going to somehow, someway, put an end to decades of overspending and waste in Washington D.C.
Unfortunately, the majority of the electorate will only take the time through whatever sound bites they might catch on their radio talk show, the morning television shows like Today, or their evening news programs. Less will actually sit down and watch the debate. Still fewer will come to places like Townhall.com or peruse Google News or something akin to it for news about their candidates. That means the majority of us are going to be very uninformed about the candidates, even the ones we like, going into the balloting in our state, and I'm afraid, it means we're going to be sorely disappointed, based on the trend so far, with who we put up against the Democratic nominee.
We had four years of Jimmy Carter, four years of George H. W. Bush and eight years of Clinton and George W. Bush, largely because of sound bites. We got eight years of Ronald Reagan because of sound bites, too, but for the most part, I think Republicans are happy with that. The elder Bush might fall into the latter category, depending on how you feel about the raising taxes after the "read my lips" sound bite, but despite high approval ratings among Republicans with regards to the present President Bush, you can't say there hasn't been at the very least, a high level of frustration with him on various fronts.
Do we really want that again? Do we really want to elect a candidate based on sound bites and take the chance that we'll find our next Reagan that way?
If so, McCain or Huckabee would seem to be our men. With a majority of self-proclaimed conservatives going after both of them for what they term liberal stances on a host of issues, we'll get what we vote for. Huckabee might be a lesser known quantity nationally, but McCain is not. He has not built up his reputation as a Maverick by voting the party line. Not only that, he has not done it by being conservative, either. In fact, being a moderate, in some instances, does not begin to tell the tale.
I think McCain has been a breath of fresh air. I think refusing to lockstep and vote the party line is great, and appropriate, when the issues confronting them demand it. He gets credit for insisting on the surge policy to win the war in Iraq. Going out of your way to find solutions that do little more than to infuriate your party, and perhaps more importantly, your rank and file constituents, however, because you think you know better, doesn't seem to be the best way to do anything, though. There are better ways, if you must, to broker compromises, and still adhere to conservative principles.
So, it's on to Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. Then it's on to Super Tuesday on February 5.
I'm hoping that substance will win out over style. I'm hoping, perhaps against hope, that Republicans will see past the flash and panache. Leave that to the Democrats. Let''s know the issues, and let's know which candidates best fit our values. Let's not go for a protracted and bludgeoning primary fight, either. No brokered convention, no matter how historic it might be. We need unity, at least within our base. We need to coalesce. The candidates aren't going to drop out as long as we keep handing someone else a victory every state. It's imperative that we vet, shake all the skeletons out of the closet so there are few surprises between now and November. We need to determine who best fits our concept of conservatism, too, but we need to do all of this on or before February 5 and then we need to rally around whoever that is and not look back.
I would urge everyone to look at substance over style. Look at records, particularly the most recent. That will judge the candidate better than looking 10 years into the past. We're all different in some way than we were 10 years ago. Some of us more than others. Some of us, though, don't learn from our mistakes. In fact, somehow, we continue to fool ourselves that those errors are our greatest strengths.
Do we really want someone like that in the White House? If so, we will most likely lose, just as predicted. Or much worse, we will end up with someone who shouldn't have been sent there in the first place.