Flattery vs. challenge

Now that the candidates for President have ads on the Boston stations targeting southern New Hampshire, I'm seeing the usual mix of advertising themes. My sanity would be better served by turning off the damn TV, but it's winter, and I don't expect to be sane in the darkness.

John McCain is flattering New Hampshirites - just as one maverick to another - that they don't care what the pundits say. Hey, it could be 2000 again, and he could be only 64.

Mitt Romney is making the usual bullshit claims - there will be more change in the next ten years than the last centuries (only if Edgar Cayce was right) - as a vehicle for delivering his insincere optimism. Since he has money, he's also doing jujitsu on McCain, saying nice things and then slamming him with the Capitol dome.

Even Obama is relying on atmospherics, too. His flattery is a common dream - not bad at all.

Hillary is making an argument that she can deliver change. I respect that. Her claim that she has "35 years experience making change" sounds a little like a long career as a Masspike toll-taker.

Only Edwards is challenging the electorate to make a significant change. That's why he's my candidate.

So, Republicans are flattering you and sniping at each other. Democrats are doing better, not of course perfectly.

Flattery should make alarms go off in your head. It is almost always a signal of insincerity and and offer to trade a compliment for what the flatterer wants from you. People who vote for flatterers get the government they deserve.

And, all you idiots riding my tail in your 15 mpg full-size pick-ups when I'm already close to the car in front of me, you're included. When Dodge wants you to be ram-tough and Toyota has joined into the automotive penis-fluffing, they are kissing your ass for the sole purpose of lifting your wallet.