Letters to the Editor
-
When you have a pulpit, say something important
Where are we - somewhere around 6 months into an 18 month presidential campaign “season?” Other than a small minority of American voters and a speck of people in the world, I suggest few people are paying serious attention to any of these candidates. This in spite of the fact that most of the media continues to churn out a constant barrage of ridiculous and meaningless drivel. Let’s be honest, the media rhetoric is nothing more than regurgitation of the candidates’ rhetoric. I don’t think that it says anywhere in the Constitution, that the media is required to cover presidential campaigns day by day, hour by hour, sound bite by sound bite. Why do they do it? I wager that less than 1 in a million people in America can correctly name the number of debates we have had so far in this campaign season. Of course, the correct answer is - none, unless we have recently changed the definition of the word debate. Candidates show up together somewhere to spew forth a lot of b.s. and s.b. (sound bites.) There is no debating in the debates! Unfortunately, America’s presidential campaign is nothing more or less than a political charade or farce (take your pick) unlike any other seen in the history of the world. The fact that the media encourages this absurd spectacle does not speak well for journalism nor for this country.
An obvious suggestion is to limit all campaigns (including office of President) to one or two months to allow each candidate to make their case based on their record of achievement along with a detailed proposal of how they would use their office to address the most important issues facing America. Following this would be a period of fact checking and critiquing by a presumably impartial media. (LOL) Candidates would not have an opportunity for rebuttal so as to ensure that they understand that they must stand or fall on their records and proposals as given. Other than voting, I see the process as no different than someone applying for a job - submit a resume, perform convincingly in the interview and after vetting the applicants, the best man or woman gets the job. Our primary system compromises every American’s right to vote. I doubt I am the only person that is critical of the fact that a few caucus-goers in Iowa or New Hampshire or wherever, may preempt who I may be able to vote for a year from now. It is past time to eliminate these awful time and money wasting State caucuses.
Ultimately, America would be better served if we had fact based studies, open discussions and vigorous debates over the many profoundly important problems facing this country and the world. In my view, Mr. Glenn Greenwald’s form of journalism properly exhibits the type of discussion that is both thought provoking and constructive. You may not always agree with the arguments put forth but it forces you to seriously debate the issues. It is my understanding that a healthy democracy represents the collective intelligence and wishes of the majority. It seems to me that the media is at its best when it seeks to promulgate this same collective intelligence and wishes of the majority. (Please do not presume that I am proposing any squelching of minority advocacy where in fact some of the best ideas and proposals germinate.)
Finally, I would like to offer kudos to letter writers Xrandadu Hutman, randron, Absolut Carnage, and Anonymous (Spent what is) who seemingly I share in thought. Hope you don’t mind being mentioned in the same letter as mine.
-
AMERICA HONESTY
Honesty is what we need in America, this country can not
continue to be run by the Insurance Monsters, Oil Monster,
corrupted politicians and lobbyst.
Check from A to Z all candidates running for President and
vote for the One who is Honest all the way.
Wacth out for the Media, their opinion sometimes is based
on $$$$$, and is not partial.
Frank.
-
re: Target
The closest Target from Perry IA is 31 miles, and Des Moines is less than an hour away.
I think they got Obama's reference, better than some of you.
-
Delores Flower Got It Right
Hey Delores,
I think you have the accurate perspective on Barack. He does seem like to real thing and knows the regular folks. He hasn't been driven around in darken suvs and had cooks all his adult life like some of the candidates. Also he gives us a sense that he has integrity. That is more than we can say of the junior senator from New York.
"Obama spent years of his life living and working and going to school among the poorest of the poor. I think that if you think he won't fight for the poor, you're mistaken."
I'm with you Delores....
-
Men with scythes
I'm reading through these critiques which are mostly critiques based on media messages and I propose that in this forum we debate the merits of each campaign based on message...
I'm sorry that this is my third time posting these three websites but here they are once more:
Obama on the issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Clinton on the issues:
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
Edwards on the issues:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
so what are the merits and non-merits? I'm sick of talking spectres. Men with scythes.
Even if American voters in general are judged by many to be too stupid to read the real campaign issues, what do people who are web savvy and educated think? Are there substantive campaign differences?
I thought that Shapiro's comment about Obama and Target were a cheap shot. The savvy left shooting down the not-quite savvy enough left. Like Clinton rebuking Obama for saying things that shouldn't be said (like that he would never use nuclear weapons to fight Al-Qaeda-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093852/) even though Obama was telling the truth. Nuclear weapons are off the table and Clinton agreed but she didn't think it was proper to be so honest in a debate.
Obama's the kind of guy who said he and his wife shop at Target because they really do shop there. He didn't say Walmart because he doesn't shop at Walmart.
But this is so many bogeymen fighting so many bogeymen. I have read through the three sites campaign issues for the party I most closely stand behind and I detect a difference in Obama's message and his delivery. I think Edwards and Obama are both reformers, but Obama is more honest in presenting both his voting record (where is Edwards senate record to back up his populist message?) and standing behind the speeches he makes. This is where it's coming down for me.
Thoughts? Anyone? And I think Obama has the best shot at the general election. Whatever rock star qualities he has, I think the people with reformer agendas ought to take advantage of something that stands a chance of getting him IN. We need to win. Or put it this way, I think we (meaning those who have been so unhappy over the past eight years that we want to cry when we think about the needless deaths, the escalating health care costs and the one third already melted northern ice cap) cannot afford to lose this election.
If all three have similar messages then we should vote for the person who is the most genuine and the most truthful. That's why Obama has my vote.
And someone else said this, but they have a valid point: if Obama is not elected I do not believe he will accept the nomination for vice president. I do believe that he will vote left of center....left of Hillary's record and left of Edwards record (as he already has) and he will quickly be considered "too liberal" for the next election cycles (s). The GOP will have four or eight years on him that it already has had on Hillary to grind him into liberal mincemeat and to motivate their money-collecting machines.
Clearly his lack of "record" works in his favor in a general election because he is far more of a liberal's liberal by his current voting record than Edwards is. And clearly more liberal than Hillary or Bill has ever been. Legislatively.
So what is everyone really arguing about here?