The Dodd Presidency
In 2004 I ran for U.S. Senate, as the candidate of the Libertarian Party, against long-term incumbent Christopher Dodd, and two others. In the course of that campaign I was invited to both of the televised debates, one on Public Television, and the other on one of the state's major regular media stations.
I met Senator Dodd, of course, and found him to be very personable, even charming. After the first debate, he shook my hand at the studio door, put his other hand on my shoulder, and very seriously told me I had done a good job. Then the first person behind him in his entourage (his chief-of-staff, probably?) asked me what town I was from, and made a note of it. I took this to suggest that I had done a good enough job that they were going to remember me - not because I was even the slightest threat to Dodd's re-election but - they might have considered recruiting me at some future time to run for a Democratic office.
Near the end of the second debate, an opportunity arose for me to specify each tax cut that he had opposed since his last election, and to point out that he had voted for every single spending bill, which, incredibly, he had. After the debate he came over to me and told me that he felt like a pinata. Then he introduced me to his wife, and was again gracious in his comments on my performance.
Obviously I don't support his politics but I am surprised that his personality never comes through from the stage. He seems to fit a vision of the "Stepford Husbands" or perhaps the "Stepford Senators" is more accurate when he is on stage. But obviously his warmth when he is face-to-face has overcome the stiff stage persona as far as the voters are concerned.
Libertarians need to notice that most of the successful long-termers like Dodd never seem to really say anything. Nonetheless, they are virtually invincible in their political races. What does this mean? Maybe it means that after thousands of years of civilization, people still vote on personality and banalities, and prefer to remain intellectually lazy. That's my view on a "down" day anyway.
I met Senator Dodd, of course, and found him to be very personable, even charming. After the first debate, he shook my hand at the studio door, put his other hand on my shoulder, and very seriously told me I had done a good job. Then the first person behind him in his entourage (his chief-of-staff, probably?) asked me what town I was from, and made a note of it. I took this to suggest that I had done a good enough job that they were going to remember me - not because I was even the slightest threat to Dodd's re-election but - they might have considered recruiting me at some future time to run for a Democratic office.
Near the end of the second debate, an opportunity arose for me to specify each tax cut that he had opposed since his last election, and to point out that he had voted for every single spending bill, which, incredibly, he had. After the debate he came over to me and told me that he felt like a pinata. Then he introduced me to his wife, and was again gracious in his comments on my performance.
Obviously I don't support his politics but I am surprised that his personality never comes through from the stage. He seems to fit a vision of the "Stepford Husbands" or perhaps the "Stepford Senators" is more accurate when he is on stage. But obviously his warmth when he is face-to-face has overcome the stiff stage persona as far as the voters are concerned.
Libertarians need to notice that most of the successful long-termers like Dodd never seem to really say anything. Nonetheless, they are virtually invincible in their political races. What does this mean? Maybe it means that after thousands of years of civilization, people still vote on personality and banalities, and prefer to remain intellectually lazy. That's my view on a "down" day anyway.
Labels: debates, dodd, libertarian, politics, presidential election
posted by Free Lenny | 7:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home