October 17, 2104--Liberal Wusses

For about 10 minutes last night, on TV, I stumbled onto the Maine governor's debate. That's all the time it took--actually, five minutes would have sufficed--to figure out who will win: current Republican governor Paul LePage in a walk.

It will help that he has two opponents, both in effect Democrats, and they will split the progressive vote so that LePage, as last time, will win with less than 40 percent of the vote. Actually, his two opponents this time are such wusses that he could easily get close to that magic 50-percent-plus-one.

Even as a part-time resident I know enough about LePage's record to cause me to hate the idea that he is one of my governors. (The other two, Rick Scott in Florida and Andrew Cuomo in New York, are in their own ways as terrible as LePage.)

I know--so what else is new.

I see LePage winning easily in spite of the fact that he's currently in a statistical dead heat with Mike Michaud--he's at 40 percent, Michaud 39 percent, and Eliot Cutler trails with less than half that.

Here's how I know--

LePage has an awful record when it comes to government programs targeted to make life a little easier for low-income Mainers. Of course he's against Obamacare and refuses to support it here. He also turned down federal support for the expansion of Medicaid. And you should only hear what he has to say about Food Stamps and minorities, even though Maine is almost all white.

Michaud and Eliot favor all of these programs and then some. They even look like central casting governor material--tall, slender, full heads of hair--while LePage has a weight problem, is height challenged, and has a snarly-looking face.

So, what's the story and why am I so sure that LePage will trounce the two of them?

I needed to hear responses to just one question to convince me who will win--

One of the things LePage has not done is expand food programs for poor, school-age kids. The host of the debate asked all three candidates what they would do about the 20 percent of Maine youngsters who do not get adequate nourishment. This should have been an easy one for Michaud and Cutler. Who doesn't want to see kids get fed? Especially if the federal government picks up most of the tab.

The two governor-types, all earnestness, took weak shots at LePage (missed opportunities) and proceeded to rattle off a long list of forgettable statistics, none of which scored any points with the audience or this viewer.

Then it was LePage's turn to respond.

He leaned forward, depositing his full weight on the podium (I feared for it) and snarled, "I know what it's like to be hungry. I didn't grow up rich [a swipe at his two rivals]. There were days I went to school hungry. I know about hunger. So don't lecture me about feeding kids. I favor that and have done everything I could during my first term to work on the problem [a lie]. And if I'm reelected I'll do more [probably another lie]."

Case closed. Election over.

One reason Republicans are doing better than Democrats is because Republican politicians, as insincere and hypocritical as they are, are better at coming across as authentic.

Take George W. Bush as as example--people thought that Yale-Harvard graduate George W, a third generation Brahmin Prescott-Bush who never wanted or worked hard for anything, was actually one of them. Just plain folks who it would be fun to hang out with and have a (nonalcoholic) beer. This also explains the appeal of a Chris Christie. Another faux-authentic.

Most Democrats, in contrast, come off as effete know-it-alls, telling people that they know best what's good for "ordinary people." Think John Kerry and Hillary (not Bill) Clinton. People are tired of hearing this, being treated this way. Lectured to.

I hate the idea, but I am trying to get used to the idea that I'll have four more years of LePage and probably Rick Scott. Cuomo I can swallow. But if liberals want to make a comeback, they had better practice being real. Or at least how to pretend to be.