the only anti-war candidate in the 9th
Occasionally, I run into supporters of Baron Hill. And some of them bristle at my claim to be the only "anti-war candidate" in the 9th District congressional race.
I understand their partisan desire to maintain that label for their candidate and the potential for confusion and subjectivity in such claims.
But let's look at the three options in the race:
-Sodrel wants the status quo advocated by Bush and McCain. I respect but disagree with that position.
-Hill votes for every non-binding resolution, but voted to start the war and votes to fund the war every time. He returned to Congress in January 2007 promising change-- and we haven't exactly seen that. And we haven't heard Hill make much noise about Iraq. In my mind, that position is hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at middling, and tepid at best.
-I want the troops to come home within the next 8-12 months.
After I make those generalizations, his defenders usually make some excuse for Hill-- why he can vote that way and still be "anti-war". I'm not impressed, so I tell them that if they're content with that, then "that's fine, but it's not good enough for me".
Here's another barometer: how much of Hill's advertising budget is devoted to ending our on-going efforts in Iraq? How many TV ads, radio ads, and printed literature? For me, it's about one-fourth. If he really cares about the issue, he'd devote energy and resources to the cause.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 3:29 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Perhaps Hill is not devoting his campaign resources to the war because that issue is not as great a concern among the public now (although they do still dislike the war). The daily sense of crisis that existed a year or two ago has abated as the troop surge (and other tactics) appear to have stabilized the situation in Iraq. There are more immediate worries holding the public's attention now.
Perhaps, but it still signals priorities, etc.
His TV ads (so far this time) have been focused on expanded benefits for veterans, keeping kids away from porn, and his interesting and convoluted approach to gas prices and energy policy. It's difficult to imagine that porn and veterans trump Iraq.
And I don't recall him devoting any resources to it in 2006 either.
There's too much data for the alternative hypothesis...it's time to reject the null...
Perhaps Hill only does that which is politically expedient. He cannot commit to one stance. That is why he voted for the war and then backed resolutions to stop funding. Try to pin him down. He is an old pro at the QB sneak.
perhaps...
Some candidates stick to a consistent position that is politically expedient. Some candidates try to walk a line between stated and actual positions for political expediency. Occasionally, other candidates stick to guiding principles with both walk and talk.
In our race, we see the same sort of thing in terms of the three claims to be a "fiscal conservative".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home