It's time for mass rebellion from ALL voters. If a candidate won't answer questions, if a candidate won't speak with the media....they deserve not a one of our votes.
The media is starting to mention this "ghost" candidate ploy. They must be the ones to start screaming. Much as I don't like David Gregory, he, Amanpour, Chris Wallace etal must join forces to force candidates to appear in their forums and answer questions.
Angle, Buck, O'Donnell, Paul, Miller, Emmer.... it's time to come out of the closet.
But, they won't....unless they are forced out.
We have a major dilemma that could be the difference between winning and losing the House and/or Senate. Try as I have, I can only come up with one solution and that is to put the ball in the media's court and allow them no excuses for not succeeding. There job is to tell a story . Without candidates speaking, the story line changes. The story then becomes "ghost candidates," do they deserve any votes, Republican or Democrat or Independent? No. I'm not dumb enough to think that the Republicans would deny their votes, but I think there are a whole bunch of Independents who could get behind the media and insist on hearing what a candidate will or won't support.
Angle is part of a growing legion of (mostly Republican) ghost politicians.
It's a trend that has been building for years: why risk actually meeting with the public, or dealing with the media, if there's a chance you might say something makaka. If you're an inexperienced extremist like Angle, Rand Paul or Christine O'Donnell, there's a very good chance you're going to screw up. If you ran a primary race as a right-wing scorcher, like Ken Buck in Colorado, there's always a chance you're going to get caught modifying a position. (I'm therefore grateful to Buck for the courage he showed in meeting a politically unreliable columnist like me--really!)
In fact, I went to a Buck event for veterans in Denver that consisted of the following: Candidate walks in, shakes every hand. Candidate announces that he's not going to say anything of substance because of the presence of a Democratic Party tracker (with videocam). Candidate leaves.
A horserace between candidates is no longer a horserace if a candidate won't speak. It's a sham.
It's one thing to watch a horse run the track by himself, but there's no substitute for watching him pound the turf with his equals. Only great horses can go the distance. Only great horses stage comebacks. And the only time a race really makes sense is when it's over. As for the view that political reporters love to cover campaigns as a horse race because it's so easy, you try it sometime. And then get back to me.
How can we have a horserace with a horse that hides?
Consider the fullness of the metaphor: A bunch of perfectly groomed and tended politicians gather at the starting gate. They all have track records and somebody has placed a bet on them. When the gun sounds, they run like Seabiscuit, frothing and jostling. Some pull up lame before the race concludes. The event, which seems to go on forever, can be a blowout or end in a photo finish. The winner takes a victory bow as the losers regroup for the next heat or depart for the glue factory.
Seabiscuit would not be a name in your vocabulary had he not raced.
Let's make the candidates make their choice.... race or lose by default.
Media: The ball is in your court. Keep thumb sucking and whining or change the narrative NOW to "ghost candidates don't deserve your vote".