Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contributors
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(35)
-
▼
October
(23)
- I heart David Brooks
- Joe the Plumber Pursued for Record Deal
- Barack Responds! Video!
- some more..
- Saddest Campaign Ever...
- Synched!
- over the top...
- Pew Research = Who knows the news
- for chris
- Thomas Friedman on a Country-wide Green Buildup
- Tony Campolo on the Iraq Troop "Surge"
- Nobel Prize winning NYTimes economist argues for m...
- Bob Dylan Poem
- more..
- Tony Campolo: Energy, Consumerism, and the Economi...
- Another perspective on ACORN
- Ron Paul - Socialism
- Christians Flee Iraqi City
- Obama - ACORN
- Cocaine use Allegation - From McCain Cochair
- terrorist..
- Test - Hutchie Bear
- test
-
▼
October
(23)
4 comments:
Hmm…so questioning who people associate themselves with in terms of negative attack ads. Yes. Sort of like the Obama campaign using as one of their slogans “4 more years of a Bush-like administration” to reflect what a McCain administration would look like. I mean, isn’t that really doing the same thing in a sense? Associating a candidate with someone who has a tarnished reputation, or who people don’t like?? Obviously, the McCain campaign should be focusing on the issues, but it seems like for the Obama campaign (from what I’ve seen), they are talking about the Bush tax cuts, and therefore equating McCain with Bush, which ignores a broader scope of the issues; they should instead BOTH be focusing on the issues, rather than with character association. But unfortunately, it’s too darn effective….
Rick, those are great points. I think it is fair to show where McCain has agreed with Bush, but he should explain consistently why he thinks mcCain has bad ideas for the future of our country and not use a scare tactic of four more years of Bush. Thats not fair and its a bogey monster. I think McCain and Hillary Clinton did something similar with the experience factor. He's an adult in his late 40s talk about his ideas and why they are wrong, not just does he have the experience to lead. Bill Clinton was dead on. No one has the experience or preparation to be president and you are only president for 4-8 years of your life. It is an impossible task.
I think the best thing for the country would be the next president to call in all the previous living presidents to move into the white house and be on staff. It doesn't make you look strong and independent but it realizes the seriousness of your task and it would be smart to bring in all perspectives and get as much help as you can. I think ancient kings did that when they conquered other kings. They may gouge their eyes out and humiliate them but they would keep them in their court. I assume they would occassionally ask their opinion too to help them.
That’s interesting about the kings. Could you imagine if all the US presidents did that? That would be great. Plus, you’d get basically free housing for life. It would be like “Old School”, but with Presidents!!
Obviously, democracy is a great concept, but, when you have to reach out to the “masses”, you apparently “have to” water-down and simplify your ideas. What effective leadership and politics should be able to present is a nuanced set of ideas and arguments that are logical. But unfortunately, this would not prove interesting. A lot of it seems to point back to the way our society has developed a materialistic culture, focused on celebrities, professional sports, and entertainment etc…(which the former 2 fall into this category). There is no push for cultivating ones mind and ideas, and I think it allows politicians (and the media) to get away with this crap.
I know of some people who in the primary stages were like “ugh, there’s too many people to pay attention, it’s too confusing!” It is confusing. But it’s also important for it to be that way. America’s new motto should be changed to “America; making life as convenient as possible while not really giving a crap.”
I think we need more candidates in the general election. Or at least make it a rule that the Democrats and the Republicans can't use the word change in their slogans or talking points. The Democrats and Republicans have run the House, Senate and Presidency for over 100 years. Their have been two real third party candidates Ross Perot and Teddy Roosevelt of the the Bull Moose party, and Roosevelt had already been president twice as a republican.
A vote for a democrat or a republican is not a vote for change. It is a vote that says I am ok with the system the way it is or I submit to the fact that this system is not going to change.
Post a Comment