Caution: the following is an editorial piece of my own invention and is solely my opinion. Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent…
I think that by our allowing the Party Primary campaigning to begin nearly a year before the actual voting, we are damaging the precious election process that this country holds so dear.
Who among us isn’t already tired of the speeches that have been followed and reported so closely in Iowa and New Hampshire? How many of us cringe at the thought of the coming political hurricane of candidate commercials to our state, blotting out everything else on TV, print, Internet and radio?
We’ve all seen the content and caliber of those mostly negative attack ads. I, for one, would just once like to vote FOR someone, instead of against someone for fear of what they might do once they’re elected. Why is it important to keep such close track of what this candidate misspoke, or the scandal that another fell into which was blown completely out of proportion? When will they all learn that the effect of invoking past political heroes, only works depending on what version of history you were taught?
Another related problem is will we, as a people, believe them when the candidates suddenly unite and “make nice” at their respective political conventions after all of those bitter negative ads aimed at each other.
The one thing that most die-hard “fans” of the primary candidates fail to realize is that the American People have very short scandal memories. Also most don’t see that while we “baby boomers” consider them heroes; to put it bluntly, Kennedy, Johnson and to some extent even King are just footnotes in history books to anyone under the age of forty in this country. By the same token, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt are just vague images to those of us in my generation, who didn’t actually experience their actions and decisions.
How short of a memory and how changeable? Look at how quickly public opinions of George Bush and his father both went from being sure-fire candidates to be added to Mt. Rushmore, to "The worst presidents this country has ever had," in two thirds of the American people’s eyes.
Then there’s the herd mentality.
Some among us seem to believe that Blacks, just like southerners, just like born-again Baptists, Italians or any other group, all think or vote the same way. The African-Americans do not share only one collective brain. They don't react as one and follow a leader like blind sheep over an intellectual cliff. I shake my head in disbelief that there are so many who believe that gays, the elderly or Latinos all vote as a huge block and need to be courted constantly. It’s almost an insult that political handlers think that way and actually tailor commercials to fit “them”.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
How do you support a candidate whose been completely shredded by his/her own party leaders?
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The one thing that most die-hard “fans” of the primary candidates fail to realize is that the American People have very short scandal memories. Also most don’t see that while we “baby boomers” consider them heroes; to put it bluntly, Kennedy, Johnson and to some extent even King are just footnotes in history books to anyone under the age of forty in this country. By the same token, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt are just vague images to those of us in my generation, who didn’t actually experience their actions and decisions.
Maybe, Jet, the voting age should be raised to 50 in America, so that people who can remember the country's history and the mistakes the previous idiots made, and who have mature judgment, can make the decisions, as opposed to the young whippersnappers who think they know it all.
Similarly, there should be a system of compulsory military reserve duty for all Americans under the age of 50 (except those who get mugged by Somalis delivering pizza). That way those retiring from military duty can feel rewarded with the franchise - "wise men and women recognized as they sit at the city gate"[take-off on Proverbs 31].
Whatcha think?
And how did the stents go?
3 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, as you always complain bitterly when non-Israelis offer up their opinions about events relevant to your adopted homeland, should you not by the same token cease to opine on matters non-Israeli? Or would that require too much logical consistency for a selective ideologue like you?
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
But, my good man, I was born in the United States, lived there a number of decades, and participated in its political system, a system which I understand at least as well as you do. I'm not a "foreigner" in my understanding of the country - and speak as a friend on an issue that relates not to America's relations with Israel, but the betterment of America. After all, Chris, I still have a rather large family there.
What I resent is not Americans expressing their opinions, but Americans (and other foreigners) who are mired in ignorance who presume to know what is best for this nation. I rarely opine on matters in Britain or Spain simply because no matter how much I may think I know about these two countries, am indeed a foreigner mired in ignorance of these two nations and the conditions there. Reading CNN or Google or Yahoo just does not do the trick. One needs to smell the grass, and sneeze at the dust to understand the place. I have done just this in America for most of my life - thus I've earned my right to speak.
He who has lived here for a number of years and who now lives overseas has a similar right to speak about Israel, as much as I may disagree with what he says.
5 - Jonathan Scanlan
On taxes and electioneering, maybe you guys should study John Howard. He took a new tax to an election, the GST. It was seen as such a ballsy thing to do and he got loads of press coverage for it.
The line was "not a new tax, a new tax system."
6 - Arch Conservative
"Am I in danger of being labeled a racist if I like Clinton over Obama?"
In danger? Apparently you haven't stated out loud in the presence of Obama supporters that you support Clinton or you would already know that you HAVE been labelled a racist Jet. The same goes for Clinton.....many of her supporters will claim that the only reason anyone could ever oppose her is because they are sexist. That argument kind of rings hollow though when they attack women who do not support Hillary. Well it always rings hollow but it rings more hollow when applied to women. We also see it with John Mccain. I do not support him but I am always hearing from so called fellow republicans that I'm not allowed to say anything negative about himbecause he is a war hero. It's sad that we have so many Americans today that believe a candidate's race, sex, military service etc etc make them immune from any type of scrutiny from the American public. So many Americans that find it easier to attack those opposed to their views with baseless cries of racist or sexist than engage in real and rational debate about the problems of our nation and the merits of those we're considering to address those problems.
"It’s no secret that I’m supporting Hillary this year. Why? Because I remember what it was like fifteen years ago when this country was becoming prosperous and had a budget surplus."
So you think if Hillary is elected we will have another period of economic boom times? Are you serious? The economy during the 1990's was driven by the .com/internet boom that was going on in the private sector. It was not due to some economic voodoo that slick willie cooked up in the white house. When the .com bubble did burst very late in Clinton's second term the economy started turning south. As with most economic trends it took some time to feel the strongest effects of the bubble bursting and Bush got blamed for it when in fact it was neither wholly the fault of Bush or Clinton. But if you want to believe that if Clinton were allowed to be president indefintely we never would have had the same economic problems in the early 2000's that we did have when Bush was president you're free to do so Jet.
Lastly...just because Billary was never found guilty on any charges in all of the scandals they've been involved in does not mean that they are innocent. The people that say this about the Clintons tend to be the same people that say Bush is guilty of all sorts of crimes that there is no proof of or that he's never been found guilty of and they're also the same people who lcaim that every CEO of a large company is corrupt, and illegally screwing over the average American despite a lack of proof.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
All good points, Bing. But what do you think of making the franchise the property of people old enough to make mature judgments on events rather than merely old enough to get a girl pregnant....
8 - Arch Conservative
I don't know about 50 because that would exclude me but I'd definitely support raising it to 21.
So much is made of the youth vote. I find it disturbing that so many 18 - 22 year olds in college living off of mommy and daddy who have never had to make a mortgage/rent payment, worry about the needs of a child/spouse or basically had even the smallest taste of what the real world is like are allowed to have any influence on the direction of the real world.
To be crass......they don't know dick about the real world. All they bring to the table at that point in their lives is empty, unrealistic, idealism.
Winston Churchill knew what he was talking about when he said "Any man who isn't a liberal at 20 has no heart and any man who isn't a conservative at forty has no brain."
9 - Arch Conservative
That should have read have any influence on the direction of our elections.....my brain skipped
10 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, as you are terminally mired in ignorance, fear and superstition, I don't really see why you should be allowed an unchallenged opinion about anything.
Your view that simply having one's feet on the ground somehow grants a person some kind of informed insight is just another example of the magical thinking you specialise in.
11 - Arch Conservative
You're the ignorant one Christopher.
Reasonable people believe that actually living in a nation for a period of years makes one better qualified to speak intelligently and knowledgably about the affairs of that nation than another whose experience with those affairs consists entirely of reading about them or watching them on television from afar.
I think you deny this obvious concept because if you admitted it to be true you would not be able to sit on your high throne and lecture everyone else on your superior insight and understanding of every issue that arises.
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Tell me when you come up with something new, Chris. By your own standards, (terminally mired in ignorance, etc) your last comment should not be allowed, but rank hath its privileges, eh?
Guess you have trouble with someone who actually takes his faith seriously and knows what he is talking about, eh?
You are like Dave Nalle - you cannot see forces that do not conform to your worldview at all as other than insanity. The main difference between the two of you is that Dave is a tad less confrontational about it all.... Less zealous is a good way to put it....
But, like with Nalle, Reality will kick your door open with all the politeness of a nasty cop making a bust, and you'll be surrounded with so much empirical proof of what you so vehemently deny that your sanity will be threatened.
I'd say I can't wait to see it all, but while you're dealing with all that, I'll have my own issues to deal with. What I just described to you is what Redemption is going to be like.
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thank you for the back-up, Bing. It's appreciated, and I owe you....
14 - Arch Conservative
Nothing is owed Ruvy. It's common sense.
If living in a nation over a long period of time isn't the most valid experience one can claim when trying to speak about the affairs of that nation then what do you believe is Christopher?
15 - Christopher Rose
Arch, but you know nothing about what reasonable people believe.
Furthermore, in any country there is a very broad range of opinions from the vaguely reasonable to the outright deranged. By your potty little theory, one country's extremist is more informed than another's reasonable person. You may choose to think your idea makes sense but I doubt many others would.
Ruvy, you still fail to grasp the difference between truth and insult but that is only to be expected from the dogmatically challenged. I don't accept that rank does or should have privileges and am very happy to accept the mores that prevail at BC.
As to your faith, hopefully you are still sufficiently connected to rational thinking to be well aware that nothing can rescue you from the delusion you have so enthusiastically embraced, but that is no reason at all that we should take you or your entirely unsubstantiated ideas seriously.
I haven't yet seen you make any points stack up so I will have to disagree that you know what you are talking about. I am however constantly amused by your weak attempts to depict my rejection of your hysteria as some kind of zealousness, as though this somehow justified your cant.
I am always more than happy to embrace reality and should any future events ever begin to resemble your fantasy, I will be sure to acknowledge that. On the other hand, should your imaginings fail to come to pass, will you then reject your creed or merely come up with yet another rationalisation to maintain the fiction?
16 - Jet in Columbus
Re 2-While that idea has it's merrits Ruvy, the youth of our country are our future, to not allow them to participate would only result in folly(sic)
17 - Jet in Columbus
re 2, the stents are working fine, but I still have one part of my heart that's inoperable. Also my left eye hemorraged again last night, which is why I'm so slow in responding... sorry.
I have to blow the text on my screen up to 200% just to read anything...
sigh
18 - Jet in Columbus
re#3-Yikes I'm staying out of that one...
19 - Jet in Columbus
Re 5-Unfortunately Jon the rich and powerful in this country have spent billions learning how to circumvent the tax system we already have, and any attempt to make them start over and pay their fair share would be squashed immediately.
alas
20 - Jet in Columbus
re#6 Ahhh Arch, you actually had me lull myself into complacancy and I began agreeing with you, but by the 2nd paragraph, you saved me and pulled the rug back out from under me.
I knew I could count on you.
When you elect a president, you elect his team of advisors more than the man/woman in the oval office.
Face it, during the 90s the Clintons and their team had it right, and I can only assume that Hillary would bring a lot of them back with her.
I love conservatives, if the economy is going great-they take the credit, if it's tanking they blame the Dems.
God you're getting boring in your old age Arch!!!!
21 - Jet in Columbus
"making the franchise the property of people old enough to make mature judgments on events"
We tried that with Reagan Ruvy, and wound up with Ronnie and alshimers (sic) and suddenly the administration was being run by Nancy's astrologer...
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
Y-A-W-N........
23 - Jet in Columbus
Arch: I don't know about 50 because that would exclude me but I'd definitely support raising it to 21.
SHAME ON YOU Arch-that would exclude nearly every brave soldier that's fighting for this country. That's why the age was lowered in the 1960s-"if you old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to vote"
"That should have read have any influence on the direction of our elections.....my brain skipped"
That's okay Bing, I didn't make it that far down in your sermon anyway...
As for the complaint about college-aged people voting, that because the more educated you are, the more liberal you are... and we can't have THEM voting!!! Yikes!!!
24 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy, Chris and Arch... While having lived in this country Ruvy, that indeed does give you the right to have an opinion... Having left it, forfeits your right to steer its future.
sorry
25 - Jet in Columbus
I think I can sum it up by saying this: it relates to how I've come to feel about the Amish and the Pennsylvania Dutch.
They've chosen to live their lives in the past because of their religion. They live with out electicity and commute by horse and buggy. Their strong sense of moral values cause me to admire them deeply.
Most of all the deep respect I have for them is because they aren't out on street corners trying to force their way of life onto others, nor do they punnish those who leave to become "modern" harshly.
but I'd never vote for one in an election, or ask them their opinion of everyday events.
Why
Because while they're absolute Americans, they've chose a different culture than us.
As for immagrants,
When the Europeans came to our shores, they had the decency to learn our language and adopt our customs and BECAME Americans.
I cringe everytime I see some woman in a burka at Wal-Mart babbling in Arabic to her children, or some Mexican yelling in Spanish at his wife.
IF you come to America to live, you should do your best to BE an american, not start your own little piece of your own homeland and ignore the rest of us who made it possible for you to come here in the first place...
what were we talking about?
Time for my Cymbalta... and now!