some of those darned political consultants - sheesh ...

[welshTerrier2]

oh, there must be a couple of decent ones out there ... maybe we can still reform one or two ... but the rest of them don't seem to get it ...

we cannot have a democracy and we can never solve the country's serious problems if this crap continues ... without an informed electorate, there can be no democracy ...

imagine a situation, and this may be the actual situation, where being vague on policy gives your political opponents a smaller target to shoot at ... let's say it's "politically effective" to be vague on policy ... would it be OK with you if your party remained vague on the issues to help them "win"? i think it stinks ...

it seems to me that voters have a right to know where you stand and a right to know how you plan to solve the problems the country faces ... when "winning" becomes a higher priority than little things like truth, and integrity and democracy, something's gone very, very wrong ...

source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_press_re_060817...

Project Vote Smart released the 2006 Pennsylvania National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) results today showing that 71 percent of the state's candidates refused to answer questions on the issues that are of top concern to Pennsylvania voters, such as education, budget and spending priorities, casino taxes, security, and international issues. Pennsylvania results show that only 44 percent of congressional candidates, 50 percent of gubernatorial candidates, and 27 percent of state legislative candidates were willing to inform voters through the NPAT. Both Senatorial candidate Casey and Senator Santorum refused to provide responses.

Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President, said that national response rates for federal and state candidates have fallen dramatically over the last three elections. This trend is evident in Pennsylvania, where congressional candidate responses have substantially declined from a high of 72 percent in the last election. <skip>

Since 2000, Project Vote Smart has found that party leaders and consultants from both major parties are advising candidates not to respond to the NPAT for two primary reasons: it will limit the candidates' ability to control their campaign messages, and it will expose them to opposition research.

These NPAT results indicate that most candidates who wish to represent the citizens of Pennsylvania in key leadership roles are not willing to help citizens cast informed votes. Their refusal to answer balanced, fair-minded questions on key issues strips citizens of the information most crucial in a democracy.

[Avalux]

1. Thank you -

good post! ;-)

[welshTerrier2]

3. no problem ... n/t

[The Magistrate]

7. That Is A Good Piece, Sir: Glad To See It Back Up

[welshTerrier2]

9. appreciate that, Magistrate ... n/t

[MrModerate]

2. I’ve seen similar questionnaires before . . .

They're a straighjacket for candidates. I can see why they resist responding to them. Additionally, they are (inadvertently or not) somewhat biased in their presentation, rigged with "gotchas" and "have you stopped beating your wife" sorts of questions.

Much like the complaints we've been hearing for years about the SATs. Maybe if they were "essay" style questions (the ones I've seen are largely multiple choice) they'd be more effective/popular.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Project Vote Smart

are you familiar with Project Vote Smart? you can check them out here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

here's a little excerpt about their mission:

Picture this: thousands of citizens (conservative and liberal alike) working together, spending endless hours researching the backgrounds and records of thousands of political candidates and elected officials to discover their voting records, campaign contributions, public statements, biographical data (including their work history) and evaluations of them generated by over 100 competing special interest groups. Every election these volunteers test each candidate's willingness to provide citizens with their positions on the issues they will most likely face if elected through the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT).

This project is an historic undertaking. Citizens come together, not in selfish interest or to support one candidate over another, but to defend democracy. It is an extraordinary gathering of people committed to one purpose: to strengthen the most essential component of democracy -- access to information -- even as it suffers grave attacks from candidates and political parties, many who are now willing to manipulate information and deceive voters.

i think they have a ton of integrity ... i think you're putting the "gotcha" on the wrong players ... this is clearly an effort by political consultants to put winning ahead of informing the voters ...

[MrModerate]

10. Having given their site a look, I agree -- they seem legit.

I'd like to see what they're asking the candidates, because I have seen "candidate questionnaires" that were rigged.

Although I still understand while political consultants (not exactly known for courage) would advise their clients NOT to put framing their message in anyone else's hands.

Not saying that's good advice or that it better serves voters' needs, just that I understand where they're coming from.

I'll give Vote Smart a closer look.

[welshTerrier2]

14. here's a sample questionnaire for Congress

http://www.vote-smart.org/pdf/npat2006/2006_congressional_NPAT.pdf

what's disturbing any way anyone sees this issue is that we are sending voters to the polls with an incredible lack of knowledge about the candidates on the ballot ... a single questionnaire from one good organization really isn't the main issue; we cannot possibly hope to solve the country's problems when well-financed, powerful interest groups are able to distort and obscure what we're really voting for by putting phony "baby kissing" ads on TV ... again, without an informed electorate, what is the point of democracy ...

democracy becomes nothing but a pretense of shared power when citizens go to the voting booth with "marketing slogans and hype" and without real information ... we need to hold our elected officials, candidates, and yes, voters too, responsible for this mess ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. The SATs are legit too, but that's not really the point.

The point is that the questions aren't tailored to give anything more than a restrictive answer. If you're running for office, such a black and white declaration can be political suicide, especially if it's not really representative of the answer you'd give.

[Greyhound]

6. How is taking a clear, defined position on an issue, a straitjacket

except, of course, if you intend to change your "opinion" if your constituents disagree with you and you have no intention of standing for anything.

[MrModerate]

11. Noooo -- certainly a politician would NEVER do that!

Per advice of the OP, I gave Vote Smart a look and have to admit that they look legit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Issues change.

Minds change.

Or were you in Bush's camp during the 2004 elections?

[Greyhound]

16. Issues don't change, stands and opinions might, but the issue remains

and BTW, I've been on to and opposed * since well before he was even nominated. Of course I took the time (about 10 minutes) to find out that he was, is, and remains a fraud.

If you believe in something, the only reason to fear stating that belief, is that you want to conceal your belief. Typical "leading from the rear" pandering that forces so many of us to have to "vote for the lesser of who gives a damn".

Anyone that wants my vote simply has to state their position and be prepared to back it up with reason, regardless of what letter appears after their name. If there is no possibility of a meeting of the minds (reproductive health choice is one example), then that may well mean that I'll vote for the other candidate, assuming the other choice is less distasteful to me.

Now, you were trying to justify why a potential candidate shouldn't have to state her/his position... :eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

21. Repeated ad hominem attack and no response to the question.

Who's acting like a Re:puke: here?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. There is no other legitimate response to such baseless, ridiculous comment

You apparently see everything in only black and white. There is no nuance to an issue for you, and apparently, in your book, not only can issues never change (even though here in reality, issues change CONSTANTLY) but people should never be allowed to change their minds on issues. I'm sure, through the course of your life, your opinions have never evolved, and you are 100% identical now politically as you were when you were 18 years old.

Quite frankly, I fail to see how it's an "attack" when you're parrotting, verbatim, the right wing attacks on John Kerry throughout the 2004 election. If you can tell me how this is any different than the ignorant asses who waived flip-flops in the air, please, be my guest. Until then, the comments stand, and stand justifiably.

[Greyhound]

23. Is it a comprehension problem? Product of the amerikan educational

system?

The issues don't change, other than to be solved, remain the same, or to become worse. Take education for example, I think it is safe to assume that a majority of people will agree that there are serious problems with the current system. Some people think we should impose more tests to "measure progress", while others (correctly IMO) point out that all that does is force educators to "teach the test". Different opinions about what to do about it, but the issue remains, and will continue to be an issue until it is solved.

What might change is one's opinion/belief about what should be done about the issue.

I am totally unalterably pro-choice and also don't think it falls under the purview of the government at all, you might be anti-choice and would see women reduced to breeding stock. Different opinions on a persistent issue. Tomorrow I might become severely brain damaged due to a falling 16 ton weight, and as a result my opinion changes, but that doesn't effect the issue.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?

If you take a minute to review the thread, you might notice that you are the only person trying to make a case about John Kerry, and politiwhores seeking cover to avoid taking a stand is hardly owned by either Party.

Speaking of a black and white world, you might like to know that everything Democrats say is not necessarily true just everything Re:puke:s say is not necessarily false.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. So let me see if I understand this correctly

Here is your exact quote Speaking of a black and white world, you might like to know that everything Democrats say is not necessarily true just everything Re :puke:s say is not necessarily false.

Is this to say you think Republicans were correct to villify Kerry for changing his stance on the Iraq issue? If so, how, exactly, is my statement that you're thinking exactly like the Bush voters in 2004 incorrect?

Quite frankly, I don't give a great goddamn if I'm the only one in the world making the case that politicians shouldn't be forced to be nailed down to black and white arbitrary stances on issues that are an entire spectrum of colors. Once again, you seem to fall in line with Bush's view that the majority is always right. The majority is not always right, and quite frankly, the majority of Americans have no fucking clue about politics, but arrogantly believe they do because they watch Meet the Press every Sunday. It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and no matter what anyone thinks, it's wrong.

[Greyhound]

25. In answer to your question, no, not at all.

Kerry was wrong to open himself up to this underhanded strategy by consistently equivocating on that and many other issues in the campaign. No, he was not my first choice (I liked Kucinich and Clark), but I did vote for him as he was the only viable alternative to *, just as Gore was the previous alternative.

Why do you insist on mis-representing what is said while at the same time refusing to address the issue?

Once again, the issue is that the politiwhores frequently won't state their beliefs so they are free to pander to whatever the audience they are speaking to would like to hear.

I understand why you keep trying to come back to your initial, libelous, claim that I support *, it gives you an easy out, you can keep repeating it as often as you like, that doesn't change the fact that it is still a baseless lie.

Where you got the asinine "majority is always right" accusation, I have no idea, but it apparently makes you feel better, so enjoy it, I suspect you have little enough joy in your life and it costs me nothing to let you indulge. Not that you care but IMO the majority is usually wrong. That's why our system was set up to protect the minority opinion (read the sig line)

But of course, you will try to obfuscate and avoid the issue all together with your baseless, ad hominem attacks.

Learning from Limpballs and Shawn Insannity?
(in case there is a problem with definition) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Some politicians fortunately do have the courage of their convictions, take Harry Reid for example, he is anti-abortion and does not equivocate. I would not vote for him for just this reason, but I do respect his honesty.

If a pol has no opinion on a particular issue, that's fine. Hopefully, they will eventually develop one based on logic and reason, and then tell us what it is and why. Then honest debate can take place and a win-win solution can be worked out, but when they conceal or lie about their opinion, you end up with the clusterfuck that we have now, politiwhores saying, for example, that they are going to protect their constituents jobs, then vote in favor some "trade agreement" that results in those jobs being off-shored. Lieberman is a prime example of this sort of two-faced, disingenuous, "politicking".

Next?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. I "insist" because I keep bringing up your own quotes to haunt you.

You were the one who brought up the point that I'm the only one making this case. If you care to indulge me some more, why else would you make this point unless to say that because everyone else disagrees, I must obviously be wrong? These are YOUR words, not mine.

Furthermore, I'd love for you to quote where I said you support Bush, because I never said that. I only said that you are using the exact same flawed logic that he and his supporters use.

Further, you still did not answer my question - which is ironic because you keep accusing me of obsfucating while you're the only one here doing absolutely nothing but that. You say Kerry was wrong to open himself up to that strategy, but aren't you saying, by implication, that Kerry should've never changed his mind on the Iraq issue? You call the actions by Republicans underhanded, yet in the same breath you say it's Kerry's fault. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Isn't that like saying it's a girl's fault she's raped because she wears seductive clothing?

So rather than playing the whole "woe is me" defensive card, why not try watching what you're actually saying?

[Greyhound]

28. You are obfuscating, you have failed to answer any questions,

you have failed to even make a coherent point. So, I'm done wasting time with one as obviously challenged as you are.

Buh-bye :hi:

[sandnsea]

29. Do you support welfare reform

yes - no

Let's pretend the bill included full funding for child care. Dem says no I don't support welfare reform.

Republican bashes Democrat for not supporting child care - and a whole bunch of others who like to beat up Democrats join in.

That's what's wrong with some of these questionairres.

[Greyhound]

5. "...being vague on policy gives your political opponents a smaller target

to shoot at..."

Just wander over to the DNC website and check out the agenda. Nothing. No proposals, no plans, no definitive statements of anything beyond platitudes of being "in favor" of economic development and being "in favor" of national security, etc. I suppose that puts them in direct opposition to all those other politiwhores that are running on platforms of being "against" these things. :eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

8. and then there's my platform

if i ever run for office (beyond laughable), i will not say i am in "favor" of national security ...

but i also won't be one of those negative types that says i'm "against" national security ...

in my campaign, i'm going to keep it positive all the way!!! i'm going to come out in favor of national insecurity ...

of course, to be fair to your point, i do NOT support economic development ... there's been entirely too much of that ...

[Greyhound]

15. LOL!!

You've got my vote! Besides, how could anyone doubt the commitment of a terrier. :rofl: :applause: :toast: :rofl:

[KoKo]

17. Ban All Political Consultants FOREVER! Dump them in a boat with

LOBBYISTS and send them out in the ocean with no food and water to drift until they find some dire end or a deserted island where they can be isolated from humanity for 50 YEARS!!!!

Or...Hang 'em from the Yardarms! by their balls and vaginas....

Yeah...a little OTT... I don't want to sound like I'm "Inciting a Riot" or something...:blush:

[KoKo]

18. Seriously...some ethical restrictions might be in order that wouldn't

interfere with "proper business practices." This "revolving door for lobbyists" and these "Political Consultants" who appear on the Cables and Pundit shows hawking their wares years after a campaign need to be restrained by some kind of ethical boundaries. If they can't define their own ethics then maybe there's a way that can be found to do it for them.

Hasn't Donna Brazille, Ed Rollins, and Dick Morris and others proved that there's SOMETHING WRONG that they are consulted by WaPo,NYT's and the Cables/Networks and NPR long after they have lost their Zing? Why should our "Airwaves" be given to them to promote their wares as they search for a candidate who will employ them?

We who have been Downsized, Outsourced and UnderEmployed do wonder why SOME get FREE ADVERTISING and the rest of us or put into "Re-Training Groups" and left to scrounge up money for more education when the education we have should be more than enough to earn a decent salary!

Shouldn't Abramoff and the Christian Right's Gang be some kind of Wake Up Call that somethings wrong in Lobbying? What about the NEPOTISM of Congress and Senate wives, children, neices, nephews, moms, pops and friends and family getting jobs on "K-Street" just because "one family member" got lucky enough to get "ELECTED!"

It's got to stop...the MASSIVE CORRUPTION AND GAMEING of our GOVERNMENT!!

[theanarch]

19. when i ran for congress a few cycles ago...

...i was sent this survey and found it to be very objective and straight-forward; and filled it out as completely, honestly and accurately as possible. It's only politicians (usually on advice of their managers) who either don't want to be called on what they really believe, or simply don't know what they believe, who refuse to respond. In my opinion, any candidate who doesn't respond is doing their constituants, and the electoral process itself, a grave disservice, and should be regarded with suspicion, and as less-than-honest/trustworthy.

[KoKo]

27. I know...how times have changed...just a "few cycles ago" you could

count on "honesty" from people filling out forms. But, in the age since Reagan of Liars and Theives...and seen how they profit...why would anyone want to be "honest and trustworthy" anymore. One might want to "appear" that way...but to deal out there in Bush World one must "pretend" and then put the "shiv in the back" of those who trust you.

It's pretty disgusting but seems to be the way it is today. :-(

[lyonn]

31. Democrats are going to repeat the last election if

they keep quiet and play it "safe". Why did Lamont win over Lieberman? Murtha is taking a beating by the media and he appears to still have plenty of backing by the masses. He got the ball rolling on the issue of the Iraq war, stessing that things are getting worse, not better, etc. The candidates that speak out get the attention of the public.

Tomorrow I believe the DNC is having a conference and I think it will be on C-Span, could give us a clue as to whether the Dems are going to speak out or play coy and hope the repubs do themselves in, very poor strategy.

[sandnsea]

30. And you're IN Congress are you? n/t