Sometimes others are better at articulating your thoughts:
The point, of course, is that being President isn't about wielding the biggest stick, it's about leadership. "Leaving the decision to generals on the ground" is an abrogation of Presidential duty. President's listen to the generals, then incorporate dozens of other non-military factors into the ultimate policy decision, which is the responsibility of the President.
Unfortunately, John McCain seems to be following George Bush in that regard - they just don't get it.
The time for platitudes has passed. We need real leadership in the White House.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 68
Agreed. Real leadership requires vision and courage. Obama appears to have a vision but he has yet to demonstrate even a hint of courage.
Thanks for the link
Taking a position on an issue and sticking with it even if your position is not the popular or expedient one. I consider his FISA vote a failure of courage.
The democrats as a whole have failed in their role as an opposition party in exercising their proper constitutional role of providing checks and balances to the executive branch. Bush and his minions have trampled on the constitution and the democratic Congress has activly stated that there will be no investigation and no accountability.
In saying this I must emphasize that I care little about imposing penalties on the participants but I do care about exposing the details to public scrutiny. Exposure and complete transparency is the best defense against future recurrance.
The FISA vote is a tricky one because it, as is usually the case, is much more complicated than it would seem on the surface. Depending on who (and how) you ask, the bill provides additional protections for Americans targeted for surveillance, while still enabling the ability to track suspected terrorists. I assume the part that concerns you (and I apologize if I've assumed incorrectly) is the immunity to phone companies who provided information to the government. Some would suggest it was a necessary compromise to get the other protections put into place. Others would say it was a failure to stand up.
My own feeling is that the telecom immunity is a non-issue. Assume for a second that there was no immunity and a suit was filed against a telecom company for providing personal information. What are the chances of the plaintiff winning the case? I say probably zero. The telecoms would argue that they were simply responding to the pressure of the government during a time of crisis with an uncertain legal status. Basically, if the government tells you to give them the data or be in contempt, what are the choices? Again, at the time the telecoms were in a position where they were being told by the attorney general that they must comply. So my guess (and I am not a lawyer so this is purely my opinion) is that it would be tons of wasted taxpayer money with almost no possibility for remedy.
Having said that, I see no point in pursuing an impeachment process. The option was essentially taken off the table politically because of the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton. I know it seems bizarre to not be able to impeach a President who willfully misled the American people into a war versus a President who lied about hanky panky in the oval office, but that's what seems to be the case. Again, huge amounts of tax payer dollars going to no real possibility of an actual remedy. Personally, I wish Congress would spend less time investigating and/or considering impeachment and more time actually doing the work that we elected them to do.
I believe we have that opportunity.
Impeachment? Whenever and wherever there are violations of the law, the offenders should be pursued. "If the impeachment fits, wear it!"
BTW, while the Democrats technically have a majority, it is inadequate to push legislation through due to the obstructionist Republicans who are insisting on 60 vote majorities for legislation as they utilize filibuster tactics to deny the majority their due right to advance the legislative process.
Agreed, there is simply not enough time for the process to play out.
Robert F rightly mentions the absence of a true, working senate majority. There are actually 49 republicans and 49 democrats in the senate with a socialist and Lieberman voting with the dems to form the slimest of majorities. A 2/3 vote is required to convict in an impeachment trial.
Robert F: Do not be to quick to dismiss the 60 vote cloture rule. The dems used it numerous times to thwart republican excesses during the years of republican majority. It is also the reason i oppose selecting a sittin g democratic senator for VP or any cabinet post, we need every vote we can get in the senate.
"....I do think that there has been an effort to expose abuses."
As far as i recall, no witness has been cited for contempt and no witness has been granted immunity. Absent the imposition of those tools for compelling testimony I do not believe the "investigations" are really serious but are merely going through the motions for appearences sake.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a fairly widely accepted tenent of american jurisprudence and the "Nuremberg Defense" (I was just following orders) was discredited long ago. What the immunity grant does is keep the cases out of the courtroom where the extent of the abuse could be exposed to the light of public scrutiny.
I will say it again: The imposition of penalties on specific individuals pales in comparison to the importance of exposing the abuses to public scrutiny.
I would clarify my previous note in light of your "ignorance of the law is no excuse" statement. I agree wholeheartedly. But I think the problem is that it will be hard to prove that anyone was either ignorant of the law or willfully broke the law. Rather, I think that there would be ample evidence provided that suggests the telecoms believed they were, in fact, complying with the law the way it was defined to them by the Department of Justice.
Now the debate is about how do we get out of Iraq. John McCain, like the current Adminstration, believes that it should be determined by conditions on the ground. Yet he does not define what criteria would allow us to leave. He says "we have won" the war, which is as meaningless as "mission accomplished." These are not Presidential statements, they are platitudes.
Barack Obama has envisioned the bigger picture from the beginning. He consistently shows that he is capable of thinking conceptually, versus the superficial thinking of the current Administration and John McCain. Contrary to those people who suggest he "is just words," anyone actually listening and thinking about what Obama says can see that he sees the root of the issues. He shows a willingness to address the issues at their core, not simply the usual political expediency.
Listen to his responses to questions. Whether you agree or disagree with what he says, he answers like a President should answer - with seriousness and honesty. John McCain seems uncomfortable with answering direct questions. Obama embraces it. John McCain is prone to joking where he should be serious; Barack Obama is prone to seriously delving into the issue to the point where the questioner isn't sure how to handle a deeper response.
The President is in charge of the policy...the big picture. He should listen to the generals, but also to other inputs and then make executive decisions. Our current President, though claiming to be the "decider" is prone to not deciding anything. Instead, he lets his Vice-President and others run the show.
Also, the Senate is designed to require some consensus on major issues. That gives the minority party some power in blocking legislation they don't like, purely for partisan reasons. Both parties have been guilty of this at different times. The key - having leadership at the top. A leader in the White House will envision "the greater good" and work with/entreat/inspire the Congress to find solutions to the country's most pressing issues. We haven't seen Executive/Legislative leadership in some time.
It's time.
The man doesn't have a long enough voting record or history in politics for us to make a decision on him. He is flip flopping on thhe issues and he is wrong on all the issues except those that he steals from his opponents.
He has no right going to the Middlle East and pretending to make foreign policy. If I were George Bush, I would send him a strong reprimand and tell him to come home Now.
You have this backwards.
With that said, I agree with many of the comments above relative to the necessity to pull out of Iraq. I think there are many roadblocks with this, however, and it will be up to Obama to sort out exactly how it's going to happen. We need to think about the healthy of our soldiers. Do we have adequate healthcare to be able to handle the thousands upon thousands of soldiers that would be coming back to the U.S. or are we going to have a situation like there was after Vietnam, where many ended up homeless. There are so many other things that Obama has to look at besides that as well. Obama definitely needs to bring a solid plan for getting out of Iraq soon with the least amount of harm to both the Americans who are there as well as the Iraqi people whose country we have so unjustly destroyed.
I also like what Danielle P has to say above, even though that's not the point of the article. Despite our long-standing history of being a country that supports other countries in thier times of need, the U.S. is now in a time of need with the economy in a severe slump. Maybe it's time to begin focusing on ourselves a little.
Actually, you have plenty of information for you to make a decision. If you feel he doesn't have enough experience, then say so and take responsibility for your decision. Others feel he has exactly the right experience.
"He is flip flopping on thhe issues and he is wrong on all the issues except those that he steals from his opponents."
It is your opinion that he is wrong on the issues. Others think he is exactly right on the issues. As for stealing from his opponents, perhaps you could quantify that in some way? To what are you referring?
Actually, he has every right to be there as a US Senator, just as John McCain has gone there in his role as a US Senator. And he isn't making foreign policy, pretending or otherwise. He is visiting the war zones and heads of state. Just as John McCain visited the war zones and heads of state.
"If I were George Bush, I would send him a strong reprimand and tell him to come home Now."
George Bush has no authority to reprimand a US Senator for doing his job or tell a US Senator anything. Perhaps George Bush could focus on doing his own job.
Obama made a serious mistake by casting that FISA vote...as he voted along with all the Republicans (who were present) and all but 28 (I think) Democrats (who were present) .
Was his real motive even more sinister than it seems to be on the surface? Was he attempting to broaden his voter base? OR...did he actually vote as he felt was best for the country and did he associate his vote with a violation of the 4th amendment? He made the decision for his vote WITH consideration for the Constitution and the 4th amendment and this makes his vote even more damnable.
McCain sat this vote out. He claims to be in favor of FISA..I'm sure he is, but look at the possibility here. He can now claim that he did not vote for FISA...WHEN IT SUITS HIS AGENDA while pointing to the vote for FISA by his opposite.
The Democrats have lacked focus and leadership and balls and have failed us miserably. They have enabled the Bush administration by their lack of action. The telecom issue is peanuts...the immunity for the telecom industry doesn't really matter....the legal battle and the resulting sanctions or fines would be paid by the consumer and they, the telecom industry, have a strong footing of defense. It is the criminal acts of the Bush administration that need to be addressed.
Robert F said this and I agree completely, "Impeachment? Whenever and wherever there are violations of the law, the offenders should be pursued. "If the impeachment fits, wear it!"
The Democrats talk but they do not act...at least not effectively. The approval rate of our current Congress is somewhere between 8 and 15% depending upon your source.
Now I wouldn't vote for McCain if I had a gun pressed to my head and a knife at my balls...and I agree that Obama offers us a new start and a refreshing change to the stagnancy of the Washington cesspool of shameful, ineffective and unlawful behavior. But while I would also "opt for finding a way to move forward", I don't believe in leaving a pile of stinking garbage behind. We need to clean up after ourselves.
While you're at it, please present the specifics of the "hope" and "change" mantra of the Senator's plan.
Thanks.
Let me agree with you, but turn it a little bit to say that I believe we, the voters, have an obligation to hold our elected officials accountable. While I don't really think we can jump on the Democratic-controlled Congress too much for their lack of ability to legislate us out of the war (which isn't possible) or punish the Administration (which is likely a waste of resources) or push through the far left agenda (which probably isn't even a good idea), I do think they could be focusing much more on doing the job we elected them to do.
I think that strong leadership in the White House is needed to accomplish this. Someone who is willing and able to inspire Congress to focus on the important issues (browbeating them isn't going to work). Obama has the potential to be that leader.
As you know, CA, leadership is subjective. Many people feel that his upbringing, his decision making, his community organization, his ability to think, his ability to inspire action, and his successful campaign for the Democratic nomination against an "inevitable" opponent provide ample evidence of leadership. Others measure leadership in terms of years of service.
CA - You and I both know that is a canard. You write this as if all he has done is wander around the country saying "hope" and "change" in some sort of hypnotic state that somehow causes millions of people to fall under his spell. Yet we all know that he has presented ideas and plans for every imaginable issue, just as has John McCain. You can go to both his and McCain's web sites and compare the two. The details from both candidates are available for anyone to analyze, and in fact, the major economic and other plans for each candidate have been analyzed by groups such as news agencies, economic forums, and NGOs.
Having said that, the details of any plan by either candidate are at best a reflection of their basic philosophies. Any specifics will be worked out by collaboration of the White House and Congress once the new President takes office. It is Congress, as you know, who actually passes legislation.
Bottom line - there is ample information avaible to make real, rational decisions on whom to elect as the next President. Saying there isn't is disingenuous. Make a decision based on facts, and take responsibility for it.
However, who are the criminals? While the evidence is clear in my mind that the Administration willingly manipulated the information to support its predeterimined decision, I just don't see how it can be proven to the point of doing anything about it. Contrary to your suggestion, it isn't particularly uncommon not to prosecute criminals that most believe are guilty. The decision is usually based on the likelihood of conviction. From my non-lawyers point of view it appears to me that the chances of any kind of conviction are close to nil.
So what would be gained from a series of public hearings or other Congressional investigations? Primarily it would give the Democrats a forum for chastising the President. I see no significant new information coming out of hearings, since the people that know that truth will claim executive privilege (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld, etc.) and not testify. [And I believe the law would hold up their right to claim privilege] So we would waste valuable taxpayer monies for no purpose other than to make the Bush Adminstration look bad.
But that has already happened. The Bush Administration has zero credibilty. No one believes a word they say, with the exception of some relatively small percentage of Republicans. In fact, most Republicans think we need a new path forward.
As I've said in a previous article, I believe the election won't be as close as most people assume. The more I've heard and seem lately, the stronger I feel about this.
So I think we need to begin focusing on the next Presidency. Let's get the right person in the White House, then lets hold him and the Congress accountable not for a partisan agenda but for real solutions for all Americans.
Wilma, I've cut and pasted all of your comment above because I think it hits the nail on the head (pun intended). They key is acting maturely. We've been acting like spoiled rich kids with the biggest toys in the neighborhood. This is exactly how it looks to much of the rest of the world, including our closest allies. Leadership doesn't mean wielding your bigger stick, it means being big enough to understand the rights and goals of the guys with the little sticks. It means treating everyone with respect. And it means building consensus in the world community to put pressure on those who distain the world society's norms. Right now the world thinks it is the US that distains the norms. We have very low credibility.
We need to regain our leadership role. We do this by being leaders, not bullies.
That said; the infamous McCain statement about being there 100 years was a clear case of foot in mouth disease. Yes we do have bases in Germany and Japan and even Cuba, but that’s not what people mean by bringing the troops home.
While Iraq’s statements sound like Obama’s they are actually more line with McCain’s, “we want you out eventually but we need to be ready for you to leave first.”
Neither candidate really is in line with what a large section of the people want. They don’t want their boys in Iraq and they don’t want their boys in Afghanistan; they just want them home. Shipping men from a stable situation to a situation that is as bad (if not worse) as Iraq was several years ago for troops already over deployed is asking for trouble.
There is constant comment about the “next Bush term.” But what was the Bush term really? Bush was, at the core, a sincere but stubborn man. He refused to see what he didn’t’ want to see. He refused to listen to advice that went contrary to what his pre-conceived notions made him want to believe.
I see little difference between Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” and Obama’s “the surge is not working.” I see little difference between Bush ignoring intelligence and Obama ignoring generals on the ground. It’s clear if you want a president who will never admit he’s wrong and does everything with rose garden colored glasses and blinders on, then Obama is your man.
As to the question of who exactly are the criminals...I don't know and this is one of the points I wish to underscore. Without a Congressional investigation...an EFFECTIVE congressional investigation, how are we to determine who to prosecute...OR even IF prosecution is warranted.
"I just don't see how it can be proven to the point of doing anything about it"... Of course you don't and neither do I at this point. But this is because the apparently obvious...to you and me and most sane Americans, charges of lawlessness we have not investigated to determine cause to prosecute and who to prosecute.
The investigation of crimes always precedes the filing of charges. If an investigation is made and there is not sufficient reason to proceed with charges...then the job has been completed. If there is evidence that warrants criminal prosecution, then the job has been just begun.
It is not up to the Congress to shrug it's shoulders and walk away. It's not up to the Congress to decide the outcome. It's not up to the Congress to decide it's just too much trouble to investigate. It is the duty of the Congress to act.
I think you are only looking at the surface here David... respectfully...the issue is deeper than one of convenience or the likelihood of successful prosecution.
Bush/McCain want us to maintain IRaq as a military base regardless of the Iraqis. America did not sign up for that. Obama is merely doing the peoples will. We DO NOT OWN IRAQ.
In any case, I'm not suggesting that Congress should turn the other cheek or ignore things because it's too much trouble to investigate, just that it won't be fruitful. Perhaps I'm just being too pragmatic. I understand that there are many people who want a full investigation to go forward and I'm guessing there will be lots of fodder for additional investigation after the election in November, where I expect the Democrats to both increase their majority in both houses but also gain the Presidency. I'm hoping we see real leadership, not simply partisan agendas, coming out of the current dynamic.
I'm not sure I would equate the two at all. Clearly Bush ignored intelligence, or perhaps more accurately, ignored uncertainty in the intelligence to suit his own predetermined decision to initiate war in Iraq. But I don't agree that Obama is ignoring the generals on the ground as you suggest. I see him listening to the generals but setting a new course. The Bush and the Obama policies would only be equitable if you assume that getting out of Iraq is as irrresponsible (and perhaps illegal) as going into Iraq. They are not. Obama has said he would take troops out responsibly - I think I hear him say something to the effect of "being as careful coming out as we were careless going in." He would have to listen to the generals on how to accomplish this.
But to your larger assertion, that Obama is somehow a person who won't admit when he's wrong and doesn't see things clearly, I would have to respectfully disagree. I see him as someone who sees the bigger picture quite clearly, with all its warts and inconsistencies. Will he govern perfectly? Of course not. Will he strive to govern for all Americans, not just the roughly half that vote for him? I sincerely hope so. Should the American people be vigilant and insist on accountability from our President and the Congress? Absolutely!!! This is our responsibility and it's time we all started taking our responsibilities seriously. I believe Obama gives us the opportunity to do just that.
Interesting article, though I disagree wholeheartedly...
Obama, while having a clear idea of what he wants to do, doesn't seem to have the guts to carry it out....
I will say I don't like McCain much either.... but he is a breath of fresh air in comparison to Obama.
I'm curious as to why you think Obama doesn't have the guts to carry out his clear vision.
I'm also curious as to what it is about McCain that makes you think he is 1) a breath of fresh air, and 2) in comparison to McCain. The reason I ask is because I suppose I could use the same language to describe my feelings about Obama in comparison to McCain. [And I will say that I like McCain but think his time has passed; that a vision of the future is what we need, not a time in the past]
WRONG;; a civilian with no military experience (or little) would be wise to leave the decisions to the generals on the ground. (Bush didn't do that at all and he had little experience) If it had been left to our generals we would never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.
I hope it's hope you can believe in, and I hope that the hope that you have that's it's change you can believe in is not thwarted by any kind of reality. I still say a diaper company needs to pick up on that slogan and make millions with it.
The decision to invade another country is one that must consider far beyond the military. In fact, the military is not only just one of many options that can be applied independently or in combination to achieve our goals, but it should be a last option.
A President's job is to lead. That is done by inspiration as well as by setting priorities and working with Congress so that they can pass laws. The same goes for foreign policy. Given our current status as a "superpower" (though this is changing), it is incumbent on the US President to play a leadership role in the world community. That requires tact, a full understanding and use of all tools, including diplomatic, economic, and military as appropriate.
I personally am not a big "hope" person. I aspire. I work toward those aspirations. I believe the voters have a responsibility not to take "hope" as a panacea and then sit back and "hope" things work out the way we want them to. I believe Obama is more than just hope and change. I believe the man thinks. I believe he has the capacity to change the dynamic of the Presidency, especially in contrast to the current Administration.
And I will do my part to help hold our elected representatives accountable. I hope (pun intended) that the majority of the rest of us will do the same. As Obama himself has said often himself, we all have a part of this. He can't do anything alone. We all have to help.
That's what I get for writing in a rush. I obviously meant "in comparison to Obama." In any case, I hope Jennifer comes back because of all the positive things I've heard said about John McCain, the concept of "breath of fresh air isn't one of them.
Candidates routinely lie and pander; both candidates have been caught doing so in this election cycle. Obama holds the record for flip flopping and there's months to go. His flip flop on FISA, and the impeccable and shrewd timing of the campaign funds flip flop should send up a big red flag. Obama is riding on a platform of "Change." A very old campaign promise we have heard over and over.
Nixon promised to end the Vietnam war, instead he bombed Cambodia and escalated the war. Woodrow Wilson, a major pacifist activist before becoming president, promised to keep the U.S. out of wars. But once elected he quickly led the U.S. into WWI, as a "war to end all wars."
The quality of leadership the nation is being offered has been seriously declining of late. My estimation of McCain has cooled --though I still hold high regard for his overall integrity. While I like a lot of things about Obama, I don't think his offer of "change" is anything to get really excited about, it's an old, worn out campaign metaphor.
In a system where the choice is only between two people, these two candidates realize how far they have to move to the center in their positions in order to get elected.
Watching how each maneuvers this play can be a determining factor.
My philosophy, in theory if not always in practice, is that all valid points of view need to be considered when making decisions. I feel the current Administration, in particular the Rovian wing, have governed based almost universally for partisan gain with no sense of obligation to consider the opposing views. If, as appears possible or even likely, the Democrats gain more seats in Congress and the White House, I will certainly not be shy about my desire that they focus on addressing the important issues with a full slate of options rather than simply shift the partisan agendas from right to left.
I have been wondering which campaign will introduce their, "Secret plan to end the war" first. :)
Obviously we disagree on the "flip-flopping" concept. Frankly, it's a tired axiom with very little meaning, and again, this is a game that we, the voters, force politicians to play. In this case, saying Obama "holds the record" for flip-flopping is disingenuous as McCain has changed positions quite often.
In the end, it comes down to whom do you think can lead us into the future. By that metric, the choice is crystal clear in my mind. I used the phrase "treading water" either above or in another thread. To overburden that analogy I would suggest that Bush is now swimming upstream against his own current, McCain is hoping to tread water, and Obama understands that someone has to turn off the spigot. They fundamentally think differently - McCain is at best tactics and tired thinking; Obama is big picture and new ideas.
The statement quoted reflects the basis of my concern when I introduce the courage factor into this discussion.
There is a significant group of centrist voters that are character driven rather than issue driven. Obama cannot win these voters by drifting to the right. A common observation from this voting block is "I don't know who he is". This question does not get answered by comparing positions on issues and visiting websites.
It is a strategic mistake to underestimate the character voter, or Reagan Democrat. Many of these voters voted for Reagan because they liked him and trusted him, not because they agreed with him. Certainty and a sense of knowing the candidate is what drew many of these voters to Hillary in the primary. Right now McCain is winning these voters.
Right now this is Obama's election to lose. There is little McCain can do proactivly to gain the adantage but there is still plenty of time left for Obama to blow it
last mistake loses!
As for the character issue, you're probably right that a certain cadre of voters "don't know who he is." Ironically, those same voters probably think they know who McCain is despite McCains evolution in positions. Needless to say, in actuality we cannot "know" who any candidate is in the sense we'll know what decision they'll make in certain circumstances. So we tend to vote for those we "know." Which is why we complain about Congress, give them a lower favorability rating than the current President, yet go ahead and reelect them every time...because we "know them." In essence, we take the lazy way out.
I listened to all of the candidates - both Republican and Democratic - and watched as many of the debates as I could. I grew a certain understanding both of the various candidates and of what attributes I felt would be important for the next President. The attributes I see as key are intelligence (certainly our current President does not inspire confidence in that regard), communication skills (ditto), the ability to listen to varied viewpoints and make decisions with all Americans in mind (not just the roughly half who vote for him), and depth of big picture understanding. As this long campaign has gone on it has become clearer and clearer (to me at least) that Obama has these attributes and the willingness (courage?) to take on the bigger issues rather simply pander to the small mindedness we've become so accustomed to in recent years.
whatever reservations and disappointments I express here, recognize that i have already voted for Obama twice, once in the voting booth and once in the precinct caucus. And as a Texas resident, I voted against GWB 4 times.
If I were rating candidates on a scale of 1 to 100 I might give McCain a 30. Before FISA I had Obama at 70 and now I give him a 50. If I were voting in a swing state, i would vote for him even if I rated him 1 point better than McCain. Assuming TX remains a solid red state, i am on the verge of looking at third candidates.
I have voted in every presidential election since 1972 and have never had the pleasure of voting for a presidential candidate I truely believe in. I was hoping this would be the year but I feel myself slipping into casting an "against" vote rather than a "for " vote.
When we look at the ratings people give Congress it is important to rememeber that we each get to vote for only 1 representative and 2 senators. It is easy to understand why a person might approve of his own congressman but disapprove of Congress as a whole. I can name lots of other people's congressmen I would like to vote against.
I actually didn't finish my thought in my previous comment as I got distracted. But I meant to add that I don't think Obama or his campaign are underestimating the character voter or the Reagan Democrat or any other group. In fact, I've been impressed with how inclusive the campaign has been, working in all 50 states and with all "voting blocks," including those that are traditionally Republican strongholds. I think he understands that he needs a broad coalition to win the election, mostly because it's hard for many people to vote for someone they know less about. [Though as I said before, many times we think we know someone but what what we really "know" is some old character that no longer exists or we "know" them just because we're used to seeing their face on the Sunday morning talk shows for longer.]
As for the Congressional votes, you make a good point that we only get to vote for 3 people (at the federal level). But when you look at the very low approval ratings traditionally held by Congress (I think it's 19% or even lower now) you know that most people are either simply whining during the poll or are just too busy to do the research on alternative candidates, or in my opinion the most likely, they simply just prefer to vote for someone they know (and thus feel comfortable with). I would be willing to bet that for most of the candidates you might list as someone you think should be voted out of office, his or her constituents probably have been voting for them for many terms.
This is especially true when the new candidate doesn't fit the "look" they are used to. But as Bobby Jindal and others have shown, sometimes a stellar candidate comes along that just stands out and people are willing to take the chance on a little uncertainty.
I believe this is that time.
Leadership at the top will give them that opportunity.