Talk is Cheap

Hot air is swirling from primary election analysis. It is coming from the media, and the volume of it is only rivaled by that which you find in the U.S. Congress. There is a whole lot of talk going on and it means very little. It is a good thing to have debates and a national dialogue. There is so much emphasis upon what the candidates have said however, and little upon what they have actually done. It is mindless chatter that the media uses to lure in listeners. Candidates do the same to lure in voters. The electorate has yet to tire of the game because they fall for it every November.

Example #1. It’s safe to say that the Barack Obama voter like what Senator Obama says, but the average American in his corner cannot name three legislative programs, or policies for which he stands. They like his rhetoric, and message of hope. That’s wonderful, but hope is an intangible quality, and without substance. Saying that he’ll engage in dialogue with U.S. enemies is closer to a policy, but still reeks of being just a platitude, without specific detailed actions to back it up.

Mrs. Clinton, the nominee heir apparent before the voting began is probably the biggest loser of the “Barack phenomenon”. However for the two years prior to the Iowa caucuses, she basked in the benefit of the “all talk and no scrutiny" atmosphere.

John Edwards has perhaps the largest credibility gap of any candidate. His message of being for the little guy, and divisively pointing out that there is a rich and poor America is reasonable. Many people would like to end such disparity. Unfortunately, his rhetoric is simply talk. He is one of the richest guys in the campaign, but you wouldn’t know it if all you did was listen to him speak. Check his record as a trial lawyer, and you might find disparity between his “talk”, and his “walk”.

Fred Thompson suffers from an “anticipation” plague. In late summer 2007 when he was contemplating joining the Presidential sweepstakes, Thompson enjoyed his most favorable status because all he had to do was talk, and barely did he do that. Many thought the actor would be a natural communicator. He may be a good actor, but without energy and the proper script, he faltered quickly. The electorate, which values hearing words more than viewing accomplishments, won’t dig deep to find his true conservative credential.

John McCain fairs better because he has been controversial enough within his own party for many people to take notice. However, his words don’t always match his deeds when one takes a look at the record. Then again the electorate won’t search the records, so McCain is still a contender.

Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are actual executives with extensive track records that would seem to be the likeliest of the contenders in either party because they actually have been the guy running the show in their respective states and cities. However the focus by the public has not been upon how these men actually governed, it has been about their vision for the future.

Each of them point to their record, and invite the electorate to check out what they have done in their respective cases. The electorate is ignoring those pleas. If they weren’t then Governor Huckabee's tax increases, and coddling of illegal aliens, prisoners and murderers would never come close to flying in the Republican party of Ronald Reagan.

Mitt Romney has not been hurt by his position changes. He’ll explain it with words, but his deeds in Massachusetts are there for everyone to see. They would likely turn-off conservatives if actions were more important than words.

Giuliani has had the same coronation status as Mrs. Clinton enjoyed for much of 2007. He only had to give lip service to be in that position. He is best remembered for his decisive action in the aftermath of September 11 2001. Yet, if you check his actual record from the time he served before that, his city improved immensely. He was controversial and somewhat unpopular at the time because he’s an “I’m gonna do it my way” kind of a guy.

The point is that Americans go for the “cheap” and “easy” every time. We have grown fat and lazy. We believe everything we hear. We elect the most powerful person on the face of the earth on little more than rhetoric, and it is about to happen again.

Americans need to study their history. Remember Jimmy Carter was a big smile and a bunch of hope when he first ran for President. He was the first Democrat to win election after Watergate. The electorate didn’t scrutinize his Georgia record well enough in advance. As a result his actions in office put the country in worse shape than Watergate. His words weren’t even close to his governing record.

Both President Bush’s and President Clinton were big on talk too. Clinton, like Reagan was very good at getting people to believe him. Enough were fooled by their charisma to get them elected. The surprise came after Clinton and Reagan’s elections because the electorate voted with its ears not with its eyes. Seeing is believing; except in American Presidential politics

Senator Obama is the next great American hope. The vibe surrounding him has not been seen since President John Kennedy ran for office. More than the similar meteoric rise, the two share another commonality. Both seduced the nation’s people with their oratory. Unfortunately what you hear is not what you get.

The greatest orator of the 20th century was Adolph Hitler. Seducing a nation with your tongue is almost always a double edged sword. America needs to learn to duck during Presidential campaigns and ask for candidate records, not words. Talk is cheap. Actions speak the loudest.