It's getting awfully deep in here

[Tonio]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63530-2004Jan30.html

Ever wish elections were decided by locking the candidates in a room with tire irons?

 

[vraiblonde]

Tonio, you're just not enjoying the political process the way I feel you should. If Joe Average would pay more attention to what's going on in the world and how his representatives vote on various issues, the candidates wouldn't have to shine a light on their opponents records and the opponent wouldn't have to lie/defend said record.

Nobody had to tell me not to vote for Al Sharpton. His "record" was out there for the whole wide world to see.

Conversely, nobody has to tell me that Bush has done an exceptional job on national security and foreign affairs. I see it in the news every day.

Most people aren't that interested or paying that much attention. Therefore candidates need to campaign to get people to vote for them.

 

[Tonio]

I guess I don't get any fun out of seeing our elected officials acting like spoiled children.

"Mom, Kerry spilled ketchup all over the table!"

"Did not! Sharpton, you forgot to put your smelly hair pomade away!"

"Dean, stop screaming or I'll send you to your room!"

Why should I listen to a candidate's opponents to learn anything from their record? They'll say anydamnthing to win. It's like getting an opinion from Home Depot about Lowes.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
Why should I listen to a candidate's opponents to learn anything from their record?

Because, if it's something bad, the candidates themselves will never bring it up. What you're supposed to do is take these little bombs they throw at each other, jump on the 'net and find the truth. Or at least the context.

There's no excuse for ignorance in the Information Age.

"It's a fight, let's face it," Kerry said of Gillespie's remarks. "They don't hesitate to dig down dirty and deep."

This remark, in particular, caught my attention. Kerry has said the nastiest, ugliest, most vitriolic things about Bush. He has flat out lied about Bush and sensationalized practically everything else. Yet Ed Gillespie questions Kerry's foreign policy ideas, and Kerry gets all huffy and offended.

This is straight out of the James Carville playbook. Attack the hell out of Republicans, call them every name in the book, lie like crazy, then cry "negative campaigning" if they so much as disagree with you.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Tonio
I guess I don't get any fun out of seeing our elected officials acting like spoiled children.

Well, that's no attitude.

That's the reason I enjoy politics. It's like an episode of the Jerry Springer show, except the screaming bafoons are not paid actors.

Well, they are - but not that kind.

Originally posted by Tonio
Why should I listen to a candidate's opponents to learn anything from their record? They'll say anydamnthing to win. It's like getting an opinion from Home Depot about Lowes.

Well, that's the tricky part - this process is called "muddying the waters". What the candidates do (whether consciously or not) is sling so much friggin' mud and nastiness and do so much muckraking that the average citizen throws their hands up in disgust and walks off.

And politicians have been doing this since Caveman Ugh cracked a coconut upside Onk's forehead to become the alpha-male.

But at least we got the internet now, where we can really see the stains in Ugh and Onk's leopardskin underwear.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
This is straight out of the James Carville playbook. Attack the hell out of Republicans, call them every name in the book, lie like crazy, then cry "negative campaigning" if they so much as disagree with you.

I have long wanted to see that bald-headed little twerp get bitchslapped into next August.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Because, if it's something bad, the candidates themselves will never bring it up. What you're supposed to do is take these little bombs they throw at each other, jump on the 'net and find the truth. Or at least the context.

There's no excuse for ignorance in the Information Age.

True. The problem is that it's becoming harder and harder to find truly unbiased sources on the Web. My experience is that 99 percent of the time, those little bombs are reported first by Web sites with ideological agendas, often leaked by the campaigns themselves.

See, the media has largely abandoned its role of truth patrol during campaigns. These days they just parrot any exaggerated claim by a candidate without bothering to check it out. That takes work and patience, and the media doesn't do it out of simple laziness.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
The problem is that it's becoming harder and harder to find truly unbiased sources on the Web.

Voting records are a matter of public record and are easily found on the internet - legitimate government sites, not some kid's blog. You can also listen to what the candidates say out of their own mouths, instead of the rehash from the news guys.

Wes Clark is easy to pick apart because he has Alzheimer's and can't remember what he said from one month to the next. But I remember. Plus that, he gets angry and his true nature comes across loud and clear - arrogant, insincere, don't-you-dare-question-me.

John Kerry stands right in front of the cameras and flip-flops, so he's easy too. And even if you believe he didn't realize he was voting to allow the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, is that really the kind of guy you want in the White House? A guy that votes without knowing what he's voting for?