Gov. Matt Blunt has managed to steamroll through nearly everything he has wanted (Medicaid cuts, the MOHELA plan, etc.), but he is still one of the most unpopular governors in the country.
The Kansas City Star offers a revealing look at the governor's style and how it affects his popularity or lack thereof:
Wealthy politicians "don’t always understand what middle- and lower-class people deal with, especially how much the lower class depends on social services," Missouri State University political scientist Mark Rushefsky said. "Saying, 'We’ll give you an electric wheelchair but not the battery to run it,' seemed insensitive and symbolic."
***
A personal observation: Perhaps it's time we stopped putting candidates names on the ballots just because of who their fathers are. This practice has not served us well in Missouri or in the United States and has given us my-way-or-the-highway leaders with no connection to the real world.
Politics has become family business for more than the Blunt family. It doesn't appear to have served the public very well.
ReplyDeleteThe Blunts on the other hand... Well, how many people of Matt's age do you know who can afford to buy $400,000 homes?
Let me clarify that a little.
ReplyDeleteWatching the Ford pre-funeral on the early morning news, it occurs to me that if you have a parent already in the business of politics (and it is a business) that the advantage you get from that doesn't allow you to develop knowledge and personality that is really necessary to be a really good leader of the people. Not everyone will make the right decisions all the time, but having a parent or family members able and willing to clean up after you prevents you from learning from your mistakes. Its sort of frightening that Matt probably doesn't think he's made any mistakes.
You may be performing all the tricks that make your campaign donors happy, but that isn't the same thing as being a good leader. Its not an accident that people look at Matt and see a person who has no heart. His policies to the poor and disabled have had no heart.
Might I suggest that the problem is not having candidates who run on their family name but having voters who vote based on names rather then positions and/or qualifications.
ReplyDeleteYou're only partly right.
ReplyDeleteMight I suggest that when politics is the family business, there are multiple unnatural advantages over opponents not similarly situated; money, political connections, the public microphone.
Add to that the fact that the media doesn't do facts any more. How can we get the facts when they aren't reported?
Yes, life is tough and not always fair.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think it can be argued that the general public does not have access to information if they wish to look for it. We have the internet, book stores, libraries and almost unlimited access to public records. I would argue that it isn’t unreasonable to ask voters to take responsibility for their own actions rather then cry about the inequities of life.
Frankly, it is laziness to insist that voter education can only emanate from a television set. We have the ability to get off our couches and read a book or listen to all of a candidates speech. That we, as a society, would rather watch “Happy Days” reruns on Nick-at-Night rather then watch a State of a Union Speech is an indictment against the voter not the candidate.
1. Getting the facts is why I drop by The Turner Report and a couple of other places.
ReplyDelete2. I didn't vote for either twit.
3. I don't listen to the State of the Union speech because I can't stand to listen to someone who uses the word "gooder" instead of "better". The basic ignorance of word usage from someone who is supposed to be runing the nation and who has his "finger on the button" is nerve racking, so its better on my nerves to get online and read about it rather than listen.
4. I don't have cable so don't watch Nick at Nite. Due to the fact that I have a family and responsibilities, I do however have limited time.
5. And excuse me, but if the media isn't reporting facts what ARE they doing to justify their existence?
But hey, let's just ignore the fact that the system is so gerrymandered and tilted through various mechanisms, such as becoming the family business, that we now have a higher rate of returning Senators and Representatives than communist Soviet Union had.
I understand what you are saying about family names & politics, but it reminds me of how I used to feel about term limits.
ReplyDeleteI used to want them so badly, but then one day I realized we already have them. All we have to do is vote. A candidate can spend all he wants on ads, but you still can vote for someone else. Same with the "family brand names". We don't have to keep electing the same families. We just do.
And as I have said a million times before...We Get The Government We Deserve.
I'm sorry. I need to apologize for being snippy. It wasn't very nice of me.
ReplyDeleteHopefully after the terms of Gov Blunt and Pres Bush, we will be through with Republicans for at least 20 years. I don't know how much more it would take for people to be completely fed up with these jokes. You notice how little you hear from Bush 41 in recent months. There is no doubt he is more than ashamed of his son in the White House, same goes for the baby boy in the Governor's chair in Missouri. We would be better off if he would spend 100% of his time in Springfield and NOT go to Jefferson City, in fact, not even communicate with anyone in Jefferson City.
ReplyDeleteDrust
While I understand what you are saying, I still can't totally fault the voters. The political leaders are the ones who lined up behind George W. Bush, even before the 2000 election began. Bush had built the biggest pre-election war chest in history, solely on the basis of his last name. And the Republicans had some solid candidates, for instance Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. John McCain. The same thing pretty much happened in 2004 in Missouri. We are not going to be provided with choices when party leaders get together behind one candidate with name recognition early and then discourage others from running. While there is nothing that says the son or daughter of a well-known politician cannot be a leader, we are getting people put in charge of this country and this state who have never paid any dues.
ReplyDeleteIn much of America, many people follow in the professions of their parents. Many school teachers are kids of teachers; many young people go into business with their parents in insurance; farming; plumbing; car dealing; truck driving or medicine. For some young people, the business of their fathers and mothers is what they have heard about all their lives and they may even admire their parents. It's something they know pretty well.
ReplyDeleteWhat's so unusual about a young person going into politics if his or her parents are in that line of work? They have heard it around the dinner table all their lives.
None of you have bothered to mention Mrs. Clinton's political career in the Senate or possibly as a presidential candidate...should she not be political because her husband was? The House and Senate on the federal level and in all the state houses are filled with spouses, siblings, and second and third generation family members. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it. Look at the Kennedys and Senator Dodd...and there are many, many others.
If Matt Blunt wants to have a career in politics, I see nothing wrong witht that. I say go for it! Win or lose, he should have the right to make the run.
Randy, maybe your problem really resides with the political parties. If they aren't giving you the candidates you want, find someone else.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the old Simpsons episode where evil aliens disguised themselves as Clinton and Dole. On Election Eve, they revealed their true identities and pointed out no matter who people voted for, they'd be electing an evil alien.
One man in the crowd said "I think I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate."
To which one alien laughingly replied "Go ahead: throw your vote away! HAHAHAHAHAHA."
That is basically the current prevailing attitude. We grip about the candidates provided by the Dems and GOP, but we still narrow our decision to only those two.
Um...why?
"To quote a previous post..If Matt Blunt wants to have a career in politics, I see nothing wrong witht that. I say go for it! Win or lose, he should have the right to make the run."
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis, but to be perfectly Blunt about it,no pun intended, he has made nothing but dumb, arrogant decisions. They screwed everyone in Missouri on Medicaid, and now they will try to restore a little of it and look like heroes. They will screw with the Minimum wage bill, or at least attempt too, they will do likewise with the Stem Cell Research plan. This in your face politics of the Repugs has to go. Their arrogance is only to cover their ignorance.
DavidRust