Does the candidate matter anymore?

There's a great cartoon in this week's Between the Lines. I'd link to it, but it appears the link is to whatever cartoon is current, not to a particular cartoon. The panel shows GOP Veep nominee Paul Ryan on television saying, "I don't know why we're spending all this time talking about gay marriage, or employment discrimination, or hate crimes. We've got a debt crisis coming!" A character labeled "Gay GOP" is watching the TV and calls over his shoulder, "Did you hear that? Ryan's promising no more Republican homophobia until after we pay off the national debt!!!"

My first reaction was I like the thinking. Then I thought about who the second character is and realized the thinking is delusional -- he's looking for any excuse to support Ryan in spite of the candidate's rating of zero on support of gay issues.



Andrew Romano has a feature article in Newsweek about Sherrod Brown, the incumbent Dem candidate from Ohio for the US Senate. Brown had a sizable lead, 15 points, until Super PAC money started flowing. His lead is down to 7 points. Instead of coasting to an easy victory Brown is hustling for every vote and working for every endorsement.

It appears Ohio is the Super PAC test ground. $15 million may not make much difference in the prez. election, but it makes a big difference in a Senate seat. If Super PAC messaging and money works here the idea can be tried in other states that might swing to either party. Spend enough money to capture enough Senate seats and the guy in the Oval Office won't matter so much to the corporate wallets.

Brown's opponent, Josh Mandel, is not running a very good campaign. Which means if Mandel wins, he would be even more beholden to his corporate masters. Justin Barasky, spokesman for the Brown campaign, puts it this way:

We beat them on every metric. But for these outside groups, Ohio has really become a test to see if this kind of money can decide a race. It's a test to see if the candidate and the campaign even matter anymore.

Scary thought.



In another Newsweek feature article Michael Tomasky takes on Mitt Romney's wimp factor. This article appeared at the end of July while I was on vacation. I'm now caught up on my Newsweek reading. I'm not sure "wimp" is the right word, "insecure" and "thin-skinned" also work.

The guy is tone-deaf in his treatment of others. He usually whines rather than apologizes for gaffes. When attacked about some aspect of his campaign he declares that topic to be one that shouldn't be discussed. His position is whatever his audience wants to hear. He is amazingly risk-adverse (this came out just before he chose Ryan for Veep). He has worked hard to avoid any tests of his character. And if he becomes prez. he may decide he has to prove something -- at a dreadful cost of lives.