The special election held on January 19th to fill the late Edward Kennedy's seat was called many things by the pundits. Depending on the political persuasion of the commentator, it was viewed as either a referendum on the Obama administration, or the opportunity for the voters to continue the agenda of the late Senator Kennedy.
The candidates were fairly easy to define. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown both are what many writers describe as socially liberal. Brown however is more conservative on fiscal issues. In essence, both were well suited for a campaign in a liberal state.
But the fact is that the Democratic party has a near monopoly on most of the higher offices state wide and all of the members of the congessional delegation (save Brown) are Democrats. Coakley's experience and her record of public service made her a heavy favorite and in fact she was up by 30 points in December. She should have won this seat without a doubt.
So what happened? In plain English words, she blew it. Coakley figured that just having a capital "D" next to her name would be all that she needed to win. When asked at one point why she wasn't campaigning harder, she disdainfully replied that she saw no point in "standing outside Fenway in the cold shaking hands." She relied instead on establishment Democrats, Labor leaders and other key personnel in the party to do the heavy lifting and get out the vote.
Contrast that to Brown who campaigned the way a candidate should campaign. He went out to meet the electorate. He stood outside Fenway in the cold and shook hands. He did what any candidate should do: he earned the votes by getting his message out, whereas Coakley figured that she just needed to show up on election day.
As a result, the voters of Massachusetts sent the first Republican to the Senate from the Commonwealth for the first time in almost 40 years.
A former Political Science professor of mine once said that if you are ever running a campaign and your candidate is ahead in the polls run like you're 5 points behind. Martha Coakley should have been campaigning from the day after the primary until the polls opened. Too bad she thought that all she had to do was show up.
In sum, this wasn't a referendum on the Obama administration, nor was it an electorate rejecting the policies of the Democratic party. This was a classic example of what happens when a politician makes the almost always fatal mistake of taking the electorate for granted.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Remote Car Starters
Okay. There are a lot of pros and cons to having one of these installed in your car/ truck/ SUV. I'm going to discuss the pros and why I think there are cons.
Pros:
In cold weather (like where I live), these are very convenient. I start my car from the warmth of my apartment 10 minutes before I leave. When I get out side, the Jeep is nice and warm, the engine is ready to go, which is essential in cold weather to reduce wear and tear, and the windshield is defrosted. Because winter can stretch into a 5 month season around here, a remote starter is very convenient.
In warm weather, I set the AC and start it 5 minutes before I leave. The cabin is nice and cool when I get outside. Granted, it's only hot and humid around here 6 weeks out of the year, but it's still nice to have the AC going when I get outside.
Cons:
Some people report that a remote starter screws up the cars electronics. I agree that one installed by a third party that doesn't know what they are doing can indeed screw up the cars electronic system. It could be as minor as seting off caution and warning alarms (I.E. Low Tire Pressure sensors) to the car not starting. To acoid this, have the starter installed by the dealer who sold you the car. Installs performed by a third party that have an adverse effect on the cars electronic systems my result in parts of the warranty being voided.
In sum? If you are going to have a remote starter installed, have it done by the dealer who sold you the car. You will pay mnore that having it done by a third party. The upside is that you're car's warranty will be in tact and the warranty will extend to cover your new remote starter. I had a few problems with mine after it was installed. I took it back to the dealer and they replaced it free. As a matter of convenience, I recommend that you have it installed before you take delivery.
Pros:
In cold weather (like where I live), these are very convenient. I start my car from the warmth of my apartment 10 minutes before I leave. When I get out side, the Jeep is nice and warm, the engine is ready to go, which is essential in cold weather to reduce wear and tear, and the windshield is defrosted. Because winter can stretch into a 5 month season around here, a remote starter is very convenient.
In warm weather, I set the AC and start it 5 minutes before I leave. The cabin is nice and cool when I get outside. Granted, it's only hot and humid around here 6 weeks out of the year, but it's still nice to have the AC going when I get outside.
Cons:
Some people report that a remote starter screws up the cars electronics. I agree that one installed by a third party that doesn't know what they are doing can indeed screw up the cars electronic system. It could be as minor as seting off caution and warning alarms (I.E. Low Tire Pressure sensors) to the car not starting. To acoid this, have the starter installed by the dealer who sold you the car. Installs performed by a third party that have an adverse effect on the cars electronic systems my result in parts of the warranty being voided.
In sum? If you are going to have a remote starter installed, have it done by the dealer who sold you the car. You will pay mnore that having it done by a third party. The upside is that you're car's warranty will be in tact and the warranty will extend to cover your new remote starter. I had a few problems with mine after it was installed. I took it back to the dealer and they replaced it free. As a matter of convenience, I recommend that you have it installed before you take delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)