Rasmussen says Landrieu leads Cassidy by three points. While this is within the normal range of +/- variances expressed as a “margin of error”, liberal elements could latch onto this like a balloon caught in a vortex expecting it to lift Landrieu above the gates Cassidy is erecting to prevent her re-entry to the Senate.
I can’t say they’re wrong. But, I can’t say they’re right.
I was in a group holding a “greet and meet” with Cassidy a while back. The company was good, the food didn’t kill me though the service was anything but spectacular for an allegedly upscale restaurant and the interview conduct was, as always, instructive if you got past the “shock and awe” of being privileged to speak to an elected official and paid attention to what was being said.
Cassidy’s a nice guy. There’s no real artifice detectable and he and I have gone toe-to-toe on issues concerning politicians in general. Notice I didn’t say “politics”. I said POLITICIANS in general. As many of you may have noted in the past I hold many politicians in a form of generalized disdain as a group and self-defined culture.
In this case I’m balanced on the fence separating general distrust and ambivalence. It‘s unfair to lump Cassidy into the herd with clots like Reid and Pelosi because fact Cassidy is approachable, articulate and personable. But, and that’s the problem; there is a “but”. I don’t really know how to get past it right now. I’ll explain shortly.
I know a politically adept political operative who has no problem interjecting his opinions while trying to sway my attention toward the support of candidates he feels acceptable as well as profitable. Normally I listen respectfully then make a decision about what direction I’ll go. The one thing makes me shut him down and moves me rapidly toward ignoring everything else he says is when he asks the question: “would you rather vote for a Democrat?” It’s not an argument. It’s the sign of a lazy mind needing to say something/anything so as to be recognized. The question means nothing and indicates an inability to conduct a viable, articulate, persuasive argument to sway me to see anything your way.
This ignorant question is similar to the debate you’d have about the type of viper will envenomate you; the Cobra or the Water Moccasin. It’s arguable one or the other may kill you quicker but what’s that matter? You’re still dead.
Cassidy spent a period of the interview explaining he was capable of attracting more money and financial support than his Republican/ Conservative competitors. That’s nice. He explained he has a better organization. I think he even has better looking hair than Landrieu and has a better grasp of style than she. That’s all nice but there is still that nasty little “but” casting its shadow across the issue.
Cassidy has a 62% approval rating from Heritage Action, a grassroots monitoring agency grading the voting performances of all legislators as it applies to conservative values. 62% is not all that good in my thinking. To me it brings a vision of building a house on a cliff. Sixty-two percent is grounded on the rock and earth beneath the foundation built on the firmament. The other end is suspended in air over the sandy beach and pounding surf wore the face of that cliff to the point it’s at now. 38% of the total possible living area is suspended above a drop of life-ending probability. You’re only 13% away from the fulcrum being overloaded and the rest of the house plummets to the surf below.
Now remember, you were sold the beauty of a cliff’s edge seaside property. But is it what you really got? Is it what you want for your children?
Cassidy’s a nice guy. He’s a good man. But, instead of telling me how he’ll improve his performance beyond that 62% he’s giving me a lousy argument. It goes like this: “I may not be the most conservative candidate from either party, but I’m better than her!”
Go back to the choice between snakes and see if that persuades you.
Thanks for listening
