In a time where there is no election, some might feel there has been too much politics in this blog. Even I think that. It's not like I enjoy writing about what has been going on. It's not fun to think about such negative things, but I feel, like it or not, this is the time where our two next presidential candidates could be chosen-- a year before the first primary vote.
Media is playing a primary role in all of this. When people know hardly anything about many of these potential candidates, it's a constant drumbeat-- Who would you vote for if the election was today? And the answers roll off our tongues. Oh yeah, I'd vote for that one. By the time the primaries begin, it might be over with no real discussion of issues but based instead on posturing.
Today the candidates are more concerned with avoiding a misstep then giving real opinions on issues. We saw this with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when asked about whether homosexuality is immoral. They first sidestepped answering. When their non-answers stirred up anger from their bases, both had to come back and say-- no, we don't believe it's immoral.
What has added to my concern is the United States attorney story. Who even totally understood how that system worked until this latest scandal? Of the eight attorneys who were fired, it looks more and more suspicious if you take the time to look at each attorney.
The Nevada one was let go supposedly because he hadn't prosecuted obscenity cases sufficiently. His republican senator, who is furious over the dismissal, said the attorney had successfully gone after organized crime and other high level cases, but obscenity mattered more to somebody high up-- if that's the reason. The senator said the attorney had never been told of this complaint until he was let go. Reputations have been ruined and do we really know why.
Then you find out Harriet Meiers, (or Karl Rove depending on the day and the news source) wanted all 93 to be fired but not when Bush was re-elected. Remember these are his appointees to start. No, it was going to be right after the Patriot Act no longer gave Congress oversight on who was appointed to replace them. In other words, unlike normal presidential appointees, these would have received no vetting, no peer group review, not even their states senator's opinion, nobody except the president and his staff, who could appoint them for any reason (and we know how competent Bush appointees have been everywhere).
This is another one we owe to a Congress who didn't bother to read for all of the Patriot Act before they signed off on it-- very similar to the Iraqi war with how they gave over their authority. The Patriot Act has mostly served to concentrate more power in the Executive Branch, no big surprise considering Cheney's history of wanting exactly that.
The attorney replacements, who might have as their sole qualification being loyal to the Republican party, the Bush administration, or high level donors, are then in line for appointments to being judges. They are the ones who decide which cases get prosecuted (or not), and they are directly reflective of the president's opinions on these issues. Does he think obscenity is more important than organized crime? Well, it's obscenity that will be gone after and organized crime can flourish.
I read a poll the other day that moral character mattered more to most voters than issues when they chose a candidate. How does someone decide that a man running for office is moral? Many thought Bush was because he didn't have sex with interns. The kind of morality that some consider of concern is only sexual-- hence the emphasis on banning abortions, gay marriage, obscenity, prostitution, and no (or limited) concern about greed, corruption, fraud or, you know, the issues Christ actually talked about.
Right now, people need to find out, not just how well their candidates speak, not just how powerful looking they are when they pose for the camera, but what exactly have these people done, how good is their judgement, and most importantly what is their stand on the issues that will impact the voter's life. Do NOT trust the media on either side to provide this, go digging for yourself!
What the media did in 2000 with how they avoided dealing with the obvious flaws in GW Bush and pointed up every silly, meaningless (like did he hire someone to teach him how to dress) missteps by Gore, shows they are not what right wing would like to claim. They are a shallow, impressed-by-the-pose bunch, favoring the guy who seems like the most fun, looking for the 30-second soundbite, and have no real interests in deep issues. And this is true whichever side we are on.
To have issues matter, we need to know what we personally believe. Which issues matter to us? What do we want to see done? What are our priorities for these things? Issues (like tax laws, borders, environment, health care, infrastructure maintenance, relations with other nations, trade, enforcement of laws, judges, criminal and sexual laws, drug enforcement, gun control, education, etc.) might not evoke the emotion of moral judgements, but they matter now more than ever. We need to support candidates committed to our beliefs-- especially if that person happens to be a third tier candidate. The groups who want to corrupt our system will be supporting their guys. We can count on that.
6 comments:
I must say that every day I become more and more disenchanted with the man I helped elect! I just can not believe that he could be as corupt, or maybe just STUPID as it appears he is. I think if I was him I would get the broom out and clean house, starting with CHeney, and start fresh!
I do not know where my loyalties will finally lie for the next election, but they will most assuredly fall with the candidate who can make a difference in my life, Health care for ALL! Property taxes, limiting growth, Free education through the 16th year! and the right to choose!
I see such a lack of interest in the younger voters, (or Non-voters) and it is starting to scare me. They need to be educated starting with grade 1 to Care about themselves and the environment, and to make educated choices about the people they may elect.
My son is a felon, so he can not vote, but on my last visit last week, I asked him who he would vote for, and he told me that his vote would not matter, so he has NEVER VOTED!! He is 35!! When I told him that it did too count he said no, some one else would cancel my vote.
ARRRGHHH!!!
My son in law who is 59 (yeah he robbed the cradle) had never voted either, until my daughter and I both told him that he had no right to voice an opinion about the current administration unless he did something to change it. He went out registered to vote and has not missed an election. Oh by the way he is VERY VOCAL about the republican party, and thinks they are all satan's in disguise!
(Sorry, I got carried away there! should not stop here first and after the first cup of coffee!..ought to wait until later in the day when I am not so wound up!)
Gads, I must have scared everyone else off...Im SORRY!
that's funny, mary lou. You have a great sense of humor but knew that before from your blog. i never know what people will find interesting but in this case, most likely if you hadn't commented, nobody would have :) So thank you and I like your passion for what you feel-- knew that about you too though-- from your blog
I bopped over to the blog, Rain, thinking you would write today about the 4th year of the Iraq war, but so far you haven't. I'm with Mary Lou, though I did not vote for Bush. My grandson was registered to vote first time at 18--nada though he told me he registered Republican (his dad is one). You're right, Mary Lou. Apathy. As far as I know my own daughter has never voted and she's 42. My sons, now that's another matter--both politically outspoken.
I'm just so disenchanted with the whole enchilada--wanting to believe like I did when I was young--when I worked on the Kennedy campaigns and helped get out the vote. For years I worked in the polls, attended rallies, etc., and I suppose it is age. It's become about power--not the people.
Very impressed with what you wrote, Mary Lou.
So true, Rain...Everything you said....And it feels like it's "business-as-usual" where all the talking points are with ALL the so called cabdidates...!
This NEW law that our Governer here in California has signed---changing the Primary to the beginning of February seems totally ill concieved to me..I wonder what THAT is really all about...Time will tell, I hope, what ALL the candidates are really about, too.
The early primary for California is to try and get some national attention and have the biggest state in the union involved in selecting the president. By June it has been too late and each parties candidates have already been set.
Post a Comment