More Senate
Below I discuss the Burns/Tester race. Free Thought has an interesting take, too:
What he says is especially true if one concludes, as I do, that Tester really is not as lily white as the driven snow.It is tempting to feel we should throw the rascal out, presumably to have a less troubling man in Tester (I do not know enough about him to know if that is true or not). Anyone who wants to clean up the system has to have that sentiment on some level. On the other hand, unless we assume that every other state will have the same intestinal fortitude, all we do is move ourselves to the back of the line for the pork.
Game theory would suggest everyone else will conclude it is better to have a useful rascal than a powerless man of virtue (again, only a theory with Tester, since I do not know). Rational self interest, assuming we cannot clean out the whole lot at once, makes it hard to vote against what is best for us monetarily, Burns, to have what makes us feel better about us, Tester (in theory).
6 comments:
From an old retired blogger guy who voted on September 23, 1st day possible. While Burns may well beat by the innuendo and national dirt machine in this filthy contest he is not entirely spotless. I never ascribed to "Better the Devil you know" theory of voting. Jon Tester is a good guy but so is Burns. I like Burns direction and accomplishments for communications, University grants etc., I do not like his choice of staff and utter trust in some of the incompetents that have had seats in his offices. So what else is new?
Montana Fats
Personally, I think the longer Tester campaigns, the worse his chances are. I liked him better as an unknown. I also updated my post, with more explanation of game theory, since I realized some people had no idea what on earth I meant.
The question is whether the taxpayers of this nation can continue to fund the adventures that Conrad Burns supports. The longer one stays in Washington, DC, the hazier that person's memory becomes as to where the money comes from that is spent on "pork."
This senate race is simple: it's time for someone new. Eighteen years is long enough.
Marvin, I understand your point. From a moralistic view, and from an economic one. However, I think that you expect too much overall fiscal effect from changing one senator. Taking him out of office will not change how much the government spends, in any significant way, without changing the overall make up of Congress. Do you think the rest of the country is ready for mass change? Do you think all the new challengers would actually be fiscally responsible if sent to Washington en mass?
Or, Marvin, do you think Tester will spend less, or will he spend as much or more, just on different programs?
We know how much money Senator Burns loves to spend. We've watched him for 18-years.
We do not know how much a newly-elected Senator Testor will spend.
We have seen Tester vote for a balanced budget. We have never seen Burns do so.
Why not change something about the present nonsense? What reason is there to keep slogging down the same old path? "Stay the course" seems to suddenly be out of fashion in DC.
Post a Comment