At the end of this Post-Gazette quickie story summing up voting results so far, there’s a quote from a guy I’d like to to have a little heart-to-heart with:
Dave Price, 65, a Republican in Bellevue, cast a vote early today
for Mr. McCain. But he said that’s not necessarily the way he will go
in the November general election.
“If Obama runs, I’ll be very interested in taking a look,” said Mr. Price, a retiree.
“The change theme gets me,” Mr. Price said. “I’m a Republican but not a knee-jerk Republican.”
All the candidates ran on a platform of change, but if the race comes down to Clinton versus McCain, there’s no need to consider the possibility of voting for the Democratic candidate? Why might that be?
All three candidates are part of the current legislative body and a departure from the current administration.
Hillary Clinton runs on her “experience.” This claim then makes her some kind of extension of Bill Clinton’s administration.
Add those up and she represents the least amount of change.
Anthony: I don’t agree that Hillary represents the least change, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.
Here’s a guy saying, “I’m probably going to vote Republican, but I’m interested in change. I’ll consider a candidate who brings a message of change. But only this one guy — not that lady over there.”
I’ve been misquoted and quoted out of context in the newspaper myself, so I’m walking on thin ice getting upset about this guy’s quote. But I am a little upset because I feel people are unwilling to admit their biases, and so instead they say they’re voting this way or that for this or that “acceptable” reason. and in the meantime, behind the scenes and perhaps unacknowledged even to themselves, they are really doing things for entirely other reasons.
This guy is probably not a bad guy. But the statement made me peeved.
I think Dave Price, 65, a non-knee-jerk Republican in Bellevue, can see Hillary Clinton as more-of-the-same without it being biased. He’s probably wanted change from the Clinton era federal government for about 16 years.
He probably wanted to vote for a more McCain-like republican in 2000 but all the knee-jerk republicans were busy reacting to the Clinton administration and went in a different direction.
So you see Mr. Price’s comment and thinking as fitting in with this post: “Obama and online dating“? I’ll go along with that.
I think Mr. Price intended his comment to fit with that post. He feels he knows what Clinton is about, and he knows he doesn’t want it. He doesn’t know much about Obama, but he will by November if he wins the nomination, and he is willing to consider voting for the cat.
I don’t see that as bias. He’s saying that he hasn’t ruled out all the Democratic candidates because he’s a Republican.
How many Democrats in Bellvue, if asked, would have left open the possibility they’d cosider McCain but not Romney in November? How do you see their bias?
Yeah, why not? good question…I bet I can guess. I know what he means, but it’s funny. Thank God, we don’t all have microphones in our faces every day.
Anthony: If I were to have to chance to talk to Mr. Price, I’d ask him to take a moment to consider whether all the things he thinks he knows about all the candidates are true.
I’d like to hope that everyone will give all the candidates a shot, and will avoid voting purely along party lines. I realize that that’s futile hope, but I hope it all the same.
Kathie: I am really, really glad that people don’t hold me to everything that I say.
Comments are closed.