I may be naive, but I remember a time when some politicians ran on a platform of what they could actually do for the constituents. These days the main platform they run on is how the other guy is bad and all the bad things he has done and will do if he gets in. They focus on shortcomings and not on strengths.
Recently, in one of those rare moments when I was watching tv, I saw two competing ads, one for Tim Hudak, the Conservative leader, and one for Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal leader and current premier of the province of Ontario. To my memory, neither of them made one mention of what they planned on doing for me, the taxpayer and citizen they will be sworn to serve if they get in. Both just railed on how the other guy was a bad candidate.
As someone who pays attention when people speak, I don't need to be reminded that Dalton McGuinty flat out lied and retracted the last time. He swore up and down he would not raise taxes, and within two or three days or being elected went back on that promise. By my estimation a new all time record for a broken promise. They now refer to him as "The Taxman" because he has taxed the crap out of us like no other ever has before.
I also don't need to be reminded that Tim Hudak has never been in charge of anything and really has no idea what he will do if he does gets in. I get it, they are both bad candidates and it is a sad state of affairs if and when either wins, which one will.
So I have come up with a new theory as to why that is. Could it be that they don't tell you what they will do, the plan that they have, because in reality they don't have any plan? In light of that, the easiest way to get elected is to discredit the other guy, so you look like the most viable alternative. Fear your enemy, not rely on your ally and leader.
I for one have a simple criteria. I will vote for the one who doesn't spend his campaign bashing the other guy but tells me that while he doesn't have all the answers he/she does have some ideas of how to make it work. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect effort, and creativity and and honest effort to do the right thing. To that point, I expect them to be able to answer serious well thought out challenges to their theories.
For sure I know who I will never vote for: The one who absolutely swears up and down that they won't cut jobs and/or raise taxes yet does exactly that with the following reasoning.
"Oh, I know I said I would never do those things, but I didn't realize how bad things actually were and now I have no choice". All the while, their opponent was saying all along how bad it actually was.
To me if you don't even understand how the system works, or do understand how the system works but lie about it so you can further your own personal agenda, you are telling me I am better off with the other guy. So in essence, instead of telling me why the other guy isn't worthy, you are telling me you are not the worthy one.
I think Wayne and Garth said it best "I'm not worthy". No, you apparently aren't.