Earlier this week I found myself watching the first gubernatorial debate on TPT. That is, I was watching the debate when there wasn't a wide shot of the entire assembled panel, because then I was watching Cathy Wurzer's legs slinking out from beneath a shortish yet still professional looking skirt. Holy smokes--yes, she's showing some age of late, she's married to a rumpled bag of used laundry, and her left leaning political preference is obvious and superficial and dull, but ... the woman's got magnetism. Call me shallow my ownself, but when I'm watching the boob tube, I'd rather see Ms. Wurzer chew up air time than sit through a session with her more journalistically able, yet terminally mousy counterpart Mary LaHammer.
Needless to say it was rather jarring to go from those beautiful stems to a smash cut showing the smug mug of Roger Moe or the conspicuously casual choreography of Tim Penny. But, believe it or not, I did catch a little of the substance of the arguments. And frankly, they left me inspired. Inspired to never vote again.
I wish it weren't so, I wish I could get caught up in the fever of one of these candidate's drive to achieve their dreams for Minnesota. But I can't, and I'm blaming them (at least publicly). Only Penny came off as something remotely close to a real human being (but only barely, and only by Waseca standards). Moe and Pawlenty were in half-arsed professional politician mode, pausing ever so briefly before every answer to calculate how it will be perceived by the key swing voter demographics (which apparently consists of the 18-35 year old male population of Hopkins and Blaine who still live with their parents and think professional wrestling is "funny"). Their other answers consisted of arcane references to obscure legislation they've supported in the past which were intended to "solve" some problem. Neither came off as greasy, slick types, rather they both seemed to be trying to live up to some image of politicians they've seen on TV, while simultaneously staying on message. For Moe the message was--"I'm not as old as I look" and for Penny it was "my parents were members of the lumpen proletariat". Ken Pentel, the Green, was just typically weird and flakey and whiney.
To be honest, I'd never consider voting for Penny, Moe or Pentel, no matter how they presented themselves . My understanding of the world is quite well formed and what they're advocating is contratry to this view. And I'm not going to change based on their promising me a bigger slice of cheese (even though Walter Williams would call that behavior rational--once theft is legalized and democratized, it only makes sense that people will vote to get as much of the take as they can--thus the continued success of the Democratic party in elections).
Tim Pawlenty was my only hope, and upon further review, I'm giving him a resounding perhaps. He seems to believe some of the right things, he mouths some of the right words. But he also says (and hints) at all sorts of wrong things. He's not against light rail--he's only against where they chose to build it? A commuter rail system to St. Cloud might make sense? (Both of these comments he made Tuesday night). And doesn't he have a record of voting (years ago--when he wasnt running for governor) to raise taxes when faced with so called "deficits"? (My source is the Jason Lewis show on this one.) I'll need to do some research on that last issue, but deep in my heart, I'm not sure he's extremely right.
I get the sense that if elected, he wouldn't aggresively advocate for any of the important issues of the day--that is, reducing and eventually elminating the state government's role in education, and greatly reducing income and property taxes (via the elimination of government programs--across the board). Rather, I suspect he'd preside over a continued expansion of government and taxes, but he just wouldn't be happy about it. Come to think of it, that's kind of the platform Penny is running on-- and its the working definition of a fiscal conversative/social moderate. I wouldn't label Pawlenty with that particular smear, but at the end of a Pawlenty administration, I suspect that's exactly what he'd look like.
If only my political choices were similarly motivated as my tastes in TV viewership, I'd have no problem voting for Pawlenty, as I suspect his rhetoric is the equivalent of Cathy Wurzer's legs--eye (ear) candy wrapped around a gaping void of substance.
No comments:
Post a Comment