I don't know a whole hell of a lot about New York politics, but I probably know just as much as you do about the race for governor in New York thanks to very basic news coverage. What has me perplexed is how anger has supported a character which represents the same corrupt structure they are angry with. Voters are specifically angry with lobbying special interests, greedy politicians, and money grubbing dirtbags.
Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.
Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.
I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.
People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.
So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.
At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).
David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.
I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.
Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.