November 7 Voters: Character versus Charisma

A pundit who has spent the majority of his life in politics confided to me recently that campaigns are about perception. It pains me to have to agree. Granted, there are the rare few who research the candidates' strengths and weaknesses, but most are swayed by the relentless bombardment of expensive ads.

In the Rhode Island U.S. Senate race the two opponents Chafee and Whitehouse have directly spent or had spent on their behalf almost $10 million. That's $30 for every voter expected to cast a ballot on November 7. Why would they spend that much money and where does that money come from?

In recent blasts both candidates are inferring the other is or will be beholden to the special interests that have funded their campaigns. If a candidate is backed by executives of big corporations from the energy or insurance or banking industries, do you expect bankruptcy laws to favor working families, interest rates and insurance premiums to be reduced or the price of gas to go down?

We cannot blame nor should we condone the candidates for taking these contributions, if "we the people" are so easily duped into believing that "we the people" will have our issues addressed before those of special interests. Yet, year after year, it's what happens and we blame the parties and the politicians or the "system". WE are the system and it costs us a hell of a lot more than $30. The latest deficits now cost every American over $28,000 each.

Blue state or not, 40% or more of Rhode Islanders voted for "W" in 2000 and 2004. The second time even when there were rumblings about the legitimacy of the Iraq War. The costs were already apparent with less money for education and healthcare, higher energy and property tax costs. Was this about charisma or character? Did voters vote based upon what they wanted to hear or did they really examine the likelihood of promises made to be kept?

If you're voting for/against a candidate because s/he is with the "wrong" or "right" party without examining the wo/man's character, then we can expect to have more of the same.

My criteria are simple. All politicians are assumed to play politics. It's the nature of the game. On issues that put the public at risk or increase hardship, does the greater good prevail? In 2006, I want a candidate who shows independent thought when it’s not always popular to do so. My criteria are the Iraq war and taxes. The candidate who shows how s/he will hold the President and Congress and special interests accountable, in concrete terms, will get my vote. They ought to get yours, too. After all, it's about character, not charisma. As you can see, the price is too high not to get your tax dollar's worth.