It’s a constant rehash about which contender or party can be the most popular and rack up the most survey percentages.
Life appears to be just one continuing “sound bite” instead of resolutions to real problems.
While I understand that keeping your job as or campaigning for president of the United States is a pretty big deal I am back to the same problem with pandering for votes.
It isn’t that I don’t realize that large blocks of needed votes come from many demographics.
My problem is that I have a tough time with the old “I’m your friend today and tomorrow I’ll be someone else’s friend” election tactic.
“I’m in Detroit today so I like cars.” “California has a lot of special interest dollars so I’m all for saving a fish, cutting off water to the nation’s largest produce belt and jacking up unemployment.” “Palestine should be its own state but, hey, I like you too, Israel!”
Party affiliation makes no difference and every individual campaigning is sure to be your friend.
Stay in Iraq and Afghanistan or bring the troops home?
Is national health care a good thing or not, how about reforming Social Security, the tax code or Medicare?
What about amnesty for illegal immigrants and scholarship dollars for their American-born children?
Candidate answers to those questions come forth under a number of circumstances, usually centered on the mix of audiences present for hosted forums, in response to another candidate’s remarks or even based on who owns the diner where they happen to be eating lunch.
Vegan? Eat a soy dog at the fair.
Visiting Texas? Wear a Stetson. Yep … I’m just like you folks!
As I’m not single handedly solving America’s problem, I don’t want anyone mirroring my likes and dislikes.
What I want from a sitting representative or candidate is consistency in policy and results.
CNN contributor Ruben Navarrette’s Sept. 22 column also addressed the central issues of “playing to the crowd.”
His column involved the “Buffett’s Rule” being proposed by President Obama and really sums up, in my opinion, the gamesmanship that is standard fare in Washington, D.C.
He said, “It’s election year gimmickry that stands no chance of going anywhere with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Obama knows that, and that’s why he considers it safe to propose such a plan now rather than in the first half of his administration when the House was in the hands of Democrats.
“Why didn’t he propose it then? I think it’s because it might actually have become law, and then the Democrats would have owned this new tax policy and have had to answer to voters in future elections. This way, Obama gets to excite the base in time for his re-election campaign with a proposal that won’t go anywhere, without having to pay a political price.”
To me his column was powerful stuff considering, in my opinion, that he leans toward the left and appears to mostly support the current administration.
I think he and I agree that the effort spent on “Buffett’s Rule” was all about wasting precious time that could have been devoted to real issues and potential resolutions.
Taking another nonpartisan step forward, I am also in favor of the recent James Carville suggestion that President Obama should fire all his advisers. As a matter of fact, there is more then one politician out there that should probably do the same.
If these folks continue to listen to the same advice that perpetuates the same party games, how are we ever going to address and fix the catastrophic issues tearing America apart?
The issues alone are staggering, do we really need politicians, pundits and entertainers compounding our problems with vote getting tricks?
For those of us seeking serious change from the ineffectiveness we live with today, the 2012 election cycle is less than 14 months away.
It offers the American public the greatest forum in which they can speak.
I say, “Clear away the smoke and mirrors, make your message known, let your voice be heard.”
|< Prev||Next >|