Political Punch

The various parties select their nominees for president. In the old days it was the party elite (polite term for "bosses") who basically hand picked their nominees. The candidates, themselves, rarely had to speak in public prior to the nomination. But with the advent of the primary system -- where the people vote -- obviously, anyone who wants to be nominated by his or her party must appeal to the majority of his or her party -- the party base. Once the general election begins, then these candidates must appeal to the general population if they wish to be elected. It just stands to reason that a lot of the pre-nomination rhetoric will have to be moderated in order to expand their attraction beyond their party base. The key is to moderate the rhetoric just enough to avoid a "flip-flop."

People do, legitimately, change their opinions and beliefs. When that occurs, the candidate should be open about the change and thoroughly detail why the change occurred. But all too often, instead of declaring a conversion, candidates pander to their audience. They will say one thing to a hand-picked crowd and then something else in a televised interview. And that is one reason that so many are turned off to politics and do not vote. And that is a shame!

I wish the local stations wouldn't pre-empt GMA and other news shows in order to basically say it's snowing, the roads stink so idiot alerts are in effect, and you better find a babysitter because schools closed, but your office didn't

Didn't look at the video, but the article is merely surface-deep and adds little to the discourse. For example, you note, as have countless others in recent days, that Guiliani says he'll appoint "strict constructionists" (like Scalia and Thomas) to the bench -- but why not do some digging and analyze whether this new stance from Guiliani (who has spoken highly of RB Ginsberg not too long ago) comports with his supposed support for abortion rights. How can Guiliani, who has gone so far as to support public funding of abortion, reconcile that position with an assertion that he will appoint judges who disagree with him on this fundamental issue?

Yes Romney has flip-flopped repeatedly. Yes McCain has angered many on the religious right. Yes Guiliani has started to use the "strict constructionist" buzz-word to appease the religious right. Your article is merely the hundredth or so to point these facts out. How about a little depth to the coverage? How about some new facts?

Good report, Jake. Perhaps I'm cynical and jaded in my opinions (there's really no "perhaps"), but the contortions the candidates put themselve through to appeal to (or at least not to offend) every segment of their party is tiresome at best and confounding at worst. It certainly seems the candidates have gone so overboard with pandering that they undoubtedly have to check with their handlers before speaking to any particular group to determine what their opinions should be for that group.

With each election, this pandering becomes more and more of a game with high political stakes, so much so that it's like a televised game show! I envision the following:

[Cue late 1970's guitar music.] Announcer: "Get ready to pander to the public: [Camera takes close-up of each candidate as name is mentioned.] John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. Let's all play the star-studded, big money "Pandering Game '07!" And here's the star of the "Pandering Game '07...." [Audience erupts into sustained applause as host's name is mentioned and host walks onstage.]

But why continue with this imaginary scenario? I'm sure the candidates' behavior will be much more entertaining as they reach out to all their special interest groups as they try to maintain their "bases"!