Author Topic: Good Question, Ms. Noonan  (Read 1594 times)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:28:46 AM »
PEGGY NOONAN

The Incredible Shrinking Candidates
Why is there so little dignity in the presidential campaign?

Friday, April 13, 2007 12:01 a.m.

On Wednesday John McCain distinguished himself with a closely argued and eloquent address in which he spoke seriously and at length of his position on Iraq. He said America faces "an historic choice" with "ramifications for Americans not yet even born."
"Many Democrats," he said, view the war as "a political opportunity," while Republicans view it as "a political burden." But it is neither, he said. It is not a political question to be poll-tested but a challenge that bears on our continuance as a great nation. We must stay and fight and win.

"It may be standard-setting," the Hotline said of the remarks the next day, "perhaps the most powerful plea a war supporter has . . . sent to the American people since the troop surge began. Has any other presidential candidate written a speech to persuade--importune--an audience to change their minds?"

You can agree or disagree with Mr. McCain, but where he stands is clear--and clarity these days, from our candidates, feels like a gift. As does certitude. He isn't running from the war but owning it. A political rival might say, "He has no choice." But there's always a choice.

My larger point, however, is that he sounded like a serious man addressing a serious issue in a serious way. This makes him at the moment stand out.

There is a sort of stature gap in the presidential campaign so far, isn't there? A lack of personal height among the candidates, a lack of the bearing that befits the office they seek.

Here was Rudy Giuliani this week in a speech in California. No one much noted it--he was lucky it was subsumed by the Imus wave. But this is how Mr. Giuliani opened a speech to citizens considering his candidacy for the American presidency. "Thank youse all very much for invitin' me here tuh-day, to this meeting of the families from different parts'a California."

He was imitating Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." (The rendering comes from a Newsday report.) Actually the character of Don Corleone, as drawn by Mario Puzo, was possessed of a certain verbal elegance, but never mind. Mr. Giuliani's imitation was clear enough to inspire in the audience a smattering of applause and, apparently, laughter.

Earlier in the week, in reaction to a spate of critical stories about his wife, Judith, he asked reporters to leave her alone: "I am a candidate. She's a civilian, to use the old Mafia distinction."

Ah. Can't have enough candidates for president who whimsically employ the language of mobsters.

Rudy is No. 1 in the GOP polls, but he has been displaying the worst stature gap on the trail. He can't see why his wife sets people's teeth on edge; he can't see why it would disturb us to have her at cabinet meetings; he assures us she actually won't be at cabinet meetings. This was followed by his statement that of course he continues to be pro-choice on abortion, and yeah, actually, he's probably also for taxpayer funding of abortion, but maybe not.

There is an embarrassing ad-hoc-ness, a bush-leagueness to this. It's as if he hasn't thought it through, as if he's just deciding everything each day. But by the time you're running for president you should have decided.

At the very least a major candidate should by now have absorbed and internalized that he is running for what is actually the presidency of the United States, and not, say, the Las Vegas City Council.

From Mike Huckabee this week, a similar contribution to the august nature of the endeavor. He said if Republicans don't start judging the private lives of the Republican candidates for president they should just "apologize to Bill Clinton." That'll class things up. Mitt Romney at the same time was talking about shooting varmints with all the rifles he does or does not own.

None of these are as bad as what may be the worst moment in the entire campaign so far, that being Hillary Clinton's adopting of a deep Southern drawl when she spoke at a church last month in Selma, Ala.

"Ah don't feel no ways tarred, ah come too far. . . . And the chair of all the mares in the country, Mare Palmer from Trenton, New Jersey . . "

Oh my goodness. It was so embarrassing, so lead-footed and cynical, so patronizing. You know she was shocked that it didn't go over because she'd seen her husband hop up his own accent and go with the sing-song cadences a hundred times in his career, a thousand times, and no one ever knocked him for it. But he was good at it. And he was, actually, a Southerner. He wasn't adopting an entire new regional accent and calling it his own.


So what's going on here? "Can't nobody here play this game?" The presidency is an august office. Why are these candidates acting so small when the job they think they deserve is so big?

Maybe it's just that people have less dignity these days, and so candidates do too. A few decades ago personal dignity became equated with stiffness and pretension. There was nothing in it for politicians anymore. (It all might have started in 1968, when Richard Nixon went on "Laugh-In" and said, "Sock it to me." But that worked because he had actual personal dignity to spoof.) Maybe we've reached the point where anyone who'd run for president is almost definitionally strange. Maybe it's that the candidates so far are just the kind of people who'd make it to the top of the greasy pole, scramblers by nature whose main talent is energy, not judgment.

But I have a different theory. I think it's that all our candidates for president have met, or know well, too many former and sitting presidents. They've seen them up close, they know them, they have seen their flaws and mess and inadequacy. Knowing a lot of former presidents, and a lot of incumbents, will give you a too mortal sense of what the presidency is.

The problem with former presidents is that knowing them keeps you from being awed by the presidency. When you haven't met them, you have a more austere and august sense of who they are, and what a president is.

Candidates on the trail today would be better off keeping as their template for the office Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln--the unattainable greats. It's no good to just be thinking, At least I'm better than Clinton, at least I'm better than Bush.

Something to reach for even if you know it will exceed your grasp. But it's good to be reaching upward, not stooping.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.


Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2007, 07:35:36 AM »
The candidates are petty and whiny.  None are presidential.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2007, 08:55:21 AM »
The candidates are petty and whiny.  None are presidential.
Yeah, they are.  And to think we've got quite a bit of time before we even really get deep into the campaigns.   :-\

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2007, 09:10:49 AM »
Here's how to get better candidates:

Strip corporations of "personhood" status.  That would remove corporations' right of free speech--money is equated with free speech.

That would diminish the total domination of politicians by corporate donors.

Make the candidates work for the office by appealing to the average american via well-thought out platforms of political ideas.  Now, these candidates just bide their time with platitudes and photo-ops. 

Make the debate lively again.  Let the candidate with the best ideas win without interference from the corporate donors.

Today, the candidates play to their financiers and they are not the american people.




Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2007, 09:24:04 AM »
Here's how to get better candidates:

Strip corporations of "personhood" status.  That would remove corporations' right of free speech--money is equated with free speech.

That would diminish the total domination of politicians by corporate donors.

Make the candidates work for the office by appealing to the average american via well-thought out platforms of political ideas.  Now, these candidates just bide their time with platitudes and photo-ops. 

Make the debate lively again.  Let the candidate with the best ideas win without interference from the corporate donors.

Today, the candidates play to their financiers and they are not the american people.




Decker, now there you go thinking again.  What have we told you about that?   ;)   Great points, and you just summed up why the Republican party got it's rearend handed to them this past November. 

rockyfortune

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1939
  • "look, it's the drunk piano player."
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2007, 09:26:36 AM »
because by nature politicians are weasle-like opportunists...john mccain and barack obama included...this war is a burden to the society politicians DO NOT belong to...oh, they can say they came from humble beginnings but they are so far removed from those humble beginnings the can hardly relate to the average everyday american.  they claim to help ''the people'' but unless they stand to gain something  from helping ''the people'' they do little or nothing at all.  
footloose and fancy free

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2007, 09:35:58 AM »
Decker, now there you go thinking again.  What have we told you about that?   ;)   Great points, and you just summed up why the Republican party got it's rearend handed to them this past November. 
Thank you Colossus. 

Like a lot of people out there, I am not pleased with the slickness and vacuity of most of the candidates.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64035
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2007, 11:09:38 AM »
Here's how to get better candidates:

Strip corporations of "personhood" status.  That would remove corporations' right of free speech--money is equated with free speech.

That would diminish the total domination of politicians by corporate donors.

Make the candidates work for the office by appealing to the average american via well-thought out platforms of political ideas.  Now, these candidates just bide their time with platitudes and photo-ops. 

Make the debate lively again.  Let the candidate with the best ideas win without interference from the corporate donors.

Today, the candidates play to their financiers and they are not the american people.


I'm not sure attacking "corporations" would solve the problem, but money does indeed drive the system.  It determines who runs, who wins, and who gets a seat at the table after a candidate wins.  Not sure what we can do about that.   :-\

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2007, 11:58:16 AM »
I'm not sure attacking "corporations" would solve the problem, but money does indeed drive the system.  It determines who runs, who wins, and who gets a seat at the table after a candidate wins.  Not sure what we can do about that.   :-\
Corporations have the same constitutional rights and privileges as any human being in the US.  The origin of this is a circa 1878 case where a headnote stated the personhood of corporations.  It was misinterpreted as part of the opinion by subsequent court cases.  So, since that time, the personhood of corporations has been created in error (Justice Rehnquist, upon revisiting the issue, saw no basis for extending our constitutional rights to corporations).

Here's what 'personhood' means:

corporations have equal protection rights, rights to privacy, rights against search & seizure, rights to free speech.

The Sup. Ct. held that money/political contributions are part of free speech belonging to all PERSONS.

Corporations do not feel pain, they cannot be jailed, they don't need clean air or water, they feel no anxiety but people can experience those things.

Corporations can be eternal in existence.  People cannot.

Corporations are nothing like people and should not be afforded the same rights.

Corps. can gather power into perpetuity eventually pushing out human input into the political arena.

The US is a government By and For the People.  Corporations destroy this fundamental block in our Constitution.

The corporate influence on our own representatives is ruining this country.  When's the last time a citizen got to meet with his congress person without having a $10,000 check in his hand?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64035
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2007, 12:17:12 PM »
Corporations have the same constitutional rights and privileges as any human being in the US.  The origin of this is a circa 1878 case where a headnote stated the personhood of corporations.  It was misinterpreted as part of the opinion by subsequent court cases.  So, since that time, the personhood of corporations has been created in error (Justice Rehnquist, upon revisiting the issue, saw no basis for extending our constitutional rights to corporations).

Here's what 'personhood' means:

corporations have equal protection rights, rights to privacy, rights against search & seizure, rights to free speech.

The Sup. Ct. held that money/political contributions are part of free speech belonging to all PERSONS.

Corporations do not feel pain, they cannot be jailed, they don't need clean air or water, they feel no anxiety but people can experience those things.

Corporations can be eternal in existence.  People cannot.

Corporations are nothing like people and should not be afforded the same rights.

Corps. can gather power into perpetuity eventually pushing out human input into the political arena.

The US is a government By and For the People.  Corporations destroy this fundamental block in our Constitution.

The corporate influence on our own representatives is ruining this country.  When's the last time a citizen got to meet with his congress person without having a $10,000 check in his hand?

The "corporations" are not the problem.  It's the money.  If we prohibited corporations from donating any money to candidates and elected representatives the money would still come in through individuals. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2007, 12:42:32 PM »
The "corporations" are not the problem.  It's the money.  If we prohibited corporations from donating any money to candidates and elected representatives the money would still come in through individuals. 
The corporations pay soft money contributions.  That means it doesn't go directly to the candidate but to efforts/organizations attendant to the candidate.  The corporate influence is much more than just financing campaign contributions--the lobbyists in this country are also killing our representative democracy.

The money problem is here to stay thanks to the Sup. Ct.'s holding equating financial expenditures with freedom of speech (the ACLU supports this holding--I don't). 

Removing corporate influence is a good step towards cleaning up the matter...that and stringent disclosure requirements.  It's something we can do and not just throw our hands up saying, "Well, the money will get there no matter what."  I'm not that much of a fatalist.

I think the best answer is federal funding of elections to protect against plutocratic rule.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64035
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2007, 12:52:18 PM »
The corporations pay soft money contributions.  That means it doesn't go directly to the candidate but to efforts/organizations attendant to the candidate.  The corporate influence is much more than just financing campaign contributions--the lobbyists in this country are also killing our representative democracy.

The money problem is here to stay thanks to the Sup. Ct.'s holding equating financial expenditures with freedom of speech (the ACLU supports this holding--I don't). 

Removing corporate influence is a good step towards cleaning up the matter...that and stringent disclosure requirements.  It's something we can do and not just throw our hands up saying, "Well, the money will get there no matter what."  I'm not that much of a fatalist.

I think the best answer is federal funding of elections to protect against plutocratic rule.

Individuals make contributions too.  In Hawaii, we have a limit of $3k per individual.  There are some married folks informally called "$6,000 couples" who have a lot of influence on policy making.  Sad but true. 

Who would pay for federal funding of elections? 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2007, 12:58:16 PM »
Individuals make contributions too.  In Hawaii, we have a limit of $3k per individual.  There are some married folks informally called "$6,000 couples" who have a lot of influence on policy making.  Sad but true. 

Who would pay for federal funding of elections? 
Tax revenue.  It sucks.  That little caveat really dooms it, especially w/ all the anti-tax rhetoric flying around these days.

I think we are on the same page as far as recognizing problem goes.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64035
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 01:08:16 PM »

I think we are on the same page as far as recognizing problem goes.

Agreed.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2007, 01:40:52 PM »
Agreed.
As always Beach Bum, it's been great talking with you.  Have a great weekend.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64035
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Good Question, Ms. Noonan
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2007, 01:44:07 PM »
As always Beach Bum, it's been great talking with you.  Have a great weekend.

Thanks very much Decker.  You have a great weekend too.   :)