Newsleader's Donald Kaul writes "U.S. Voters Like Middle of Road"

So my first thought about this article, at first glance anyway, was that it was another story about how Americans are tired of partisanship and wanted people to just get along. Come together, hold hands, sing songs of friendship, and sleep with smiles at night. I know, about made me sick, too. But then a read a little farther. And it still made me sick.

He starts out saying that "one of the great myths of American politics is that voters like candidates who have the courage of their convictions." I admit, this is definitely a tired phrase coming from talk radio, news media, everywhere. Kaul goes on to point out that we Americans really want someone "who will stand up for what we believe." Truly.

He poses the question, since this country is so large and has so many differing viewpoints, "What's a poor candidate to do?" He says that candidates are forced into looking at polls and shaping their campaign around satisfying as many people as possible. In other words, they will say anything to get elected. He blames us for demanding that candidates stand up for our views rather than standing up for their own.

Kaul drops off the map of his argument at this point. He says that if we really wanted a candidate that stands up for what they believe then John McCain should be the "runaway leader in the polls." Not true at all. I am not a fan of McCain because he strays too far from my beliefs and does things in Congress that I thoroughly disagree with. What I will give McCain is that he is honest about his positions and proudly stands with them (despite the impoding of his campaign). He earns more credit with me than I thought he would deserve by doing this. He gave his positions and people aren't liking them. Great! Thats the way its supposed to work. Its the ones that will say anything that make me very nervous. I have my suspicions about which are doing just that (uh hmmm Giuliani, Romney). And I don't particularly like them any better. The point of elections is to look at what each one says (and does) and make the choice about which one is the one we want. Can we help that some will say anything? I think so. Those that will say anything tend to contradict themselves in words or in actions. That makes it easy. That's why Giuliani and Romney have come under fire for switching their viewpoints at a suspicious time.

But lets go back to McCain and Mr. Kaul. He writes about McCain that he is standing up for what he believes in several issues. I'm going to show how people make their decisions on a candidate when that candidate is honest about his position and backs it with action.

1. McCain "is for staying the course" in Iraq. I tend to agree with that. Not necessarily staying the course in the same mistaken manner, but stayin in Iraq until we absolutely win.
2. McCain "favors a kindler, gentler immigration policy aimed at helping immigrants become U.S. citizens. First, let me translate this verbal vomit into something a little bit more like plain English. McCain favors a forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek immigration policy aimed at helping Illegal immigrants get amnesty and citizenship. McCain's position on this is vastly against what I think about this issue. That translation is the perfect description of his plan. Its a plan to grant amnesty to criminals, yes criminals. Its a turn the other cheek policy because it just forgives the wrongs of those that take but don't give in addition to breaking the law. Then on top of that, its a plan to make it easy for these illegal immigrants to get citizenship, never mind that those that respect our laws, and our culture (remember what color the flags were at the immigration rally in 2006? No? Red, White, and... Green).
   
3. McCain is "the chief advocate of campaign finance reform." Kaul thinks that no voter really cares about this, though I know of at least a few. Kaul blames lobbyists who hate the reform for his campaign drying up. I suspect its the first couple of ones above here, and for those that care (which is allegedly few) the McCain-Feingold reform. I think the bill had good intentions behind it. But if you pile good intentions in one hand and... well you know. It turns our that, in my humble opinion, the reform bill severely limits free speech, by those that want to contribute, those that organize to help, and anyone else who wants to push a certain campaign forward. The problem with water, which is to say money, is that it flows freely, unless dammed up. And I'm pretty much against that option, too. McCain-Feingold only put up a porous wall against a literal flood. And trampled on the First Amendment.

I understand what Kaul is getting at. That because we demand someone who is in line with our values, that the candidates simply have to conform to most ideas in order to get elected. But this pessimistic view of American politics is not exactly truth. Some do conform, and as I said before, we usually get suspicious of them. Others stand up for what they think. McCain, Ron Paul, etc. Its healthy for them to do that in our system. Everyone should do that, regardless of their chances at the power seat. Is it impossible for one man/woman to actually be representative of many of the people? Of course not. I suppose its not even wrong for someone who doesnt believe the same to vow to protect what the most people want. A person acting as a delegate, a representative in the most direct sense.

Mr. Kaul argues that this system requires our candidates to conform to the middle. Hes referring to the marked change in primary politics (those of trying to please the base, or the most parts of a coalition) and general elections (Candidates seek to turn to a more moderate view, to capture the other 30% of people who are not behind them, since after the primary, your candidate is the only one of the party and the other is the only of that party) . In less words, general election strategy tries to capture the vote of the moderates and perhaps the weak of either party.

I don't believe that candidates are forced to do this. I think they, sadly, choose to a lot of times. If a candidate stands up for his/her values and those values are right or agree with what people want or tolerate, they will get elected, provided the other candidate seeking to do the same.

But that is what Kaul is talking about. Candidates dont always, or rarely, do this. Often times they become wishy washy and seemly conflicted on their views. Is it our fault? I don't think so. Can you be faulted for wanting someone who will represent your values? Can you be faulted for wanting your values to prevail? Again, I don't think so. The fault lies with candidates so ambitious for the presidency, that they truly will say anything to get elected. Thats pretty sad. So. Kudos to Ron Paul and John McCain for their actions of honesty. While I don't agree with them on everything, they still show a lack of greed for the White House, which means that there is more room for their true ideas.

Never stop complaining about wishy washy candidates. They want power and more power and they should never be given what they want. There are candidates that are good enough to be elected on their ideas, without the compromise. Demand that too. We deserve the candidates that will stand up and choose to be honest about their beliefs. And we know all too well about which ones are wishy washy. Complain away, tired phrases and all, because you deserve that much.