No, at fundraisers they drone on about policy initiatives for hours and hours until their audiences fall into a drunken stupor I don't know why people blame candidates for using empty slogans and soundbites -- the reason why they do it is because that's all that the short attention span, Nick and Jessica watching audience can take. They play to their audience and what they want; their audience is US. We don't watch Lincoln Douglas debates anymore, we watch Fear Factor. I get sick of people blaming politics and politicians for being vapid, lazy,corrupt etc -- the reason why they are is because WE let them be that way. The American people should be as accountable for their choices as politicians are -- you can't be in favor of the Iraq war (as polling indicated contemporaeously) and then opposed to paying for Iraq's reconstruction (as other polling indicated). It's our country, in the end.
In 2004 Bush was the clear cut choice. No way could the republicans split their party by electing someone like McCain. it would have been a disaster to have a first term president teeing off against his own party. So yes in 2004 Bush was the best choice for the GOP.
Well, IMO, the correct guy would not have been one of the most liberal Senators in Washington (although Dean would have been worse). Right now, it looks as if the strategists on both sides have determined that the way to win the election is to mobilize their base, i.e. the party who can get more people from their base to vote will win the election. This is different from previous elections where the strategy was to move towards the middle to get the "swing" voters (Clinton and Bush Sr. did this). Personally, I don't think this is the correct approach (of course, what do I know?). I think that this election is so polarizing and that both "bases" think this contest is so important that they are going to go out and vote in pretty strong numbers. What the Democrats needed to do, IMO, is nominate a candidate who a disgruntled Republican could vote for: An alternative to GWB. Right now, there are probably very few Republicans who would feel comfortable voting for Kerry. The whole Democratic nomination process was nothing but a big Bush bashing fest. That may make Democrats feel good but it does nothing to attract Republicans or swing voters who feel that Bush is not the right guy (and there are probably a lot of those around). As a matter of fact, all the Bush bashing does is make you dislike Kerry more (once again, assuming that you consider yourself conservative or Republican). A better approach may have been for the Democrats to say that Bush was president during some very trying times and, while he means well, he's not up to the task. It would have been a great way to come across as a untiting party and to attract people to their ticket as oppose to repel them with the Bush bashing. When the Democrats bash Bush they also come across as bashing the people that voted for him (i.e. Bush is stupid therefore, if you voted for Bush you are stupid). I feel that if the Democrats had nominated a middle-of-the-road kind of guy they would have gotten their base to vote (the whole "anyone but Bush" crowd) plus they could have attracted people who voted for Bush the first time but feel that maybe someone could do the job a little bit better. Personally I can't stand Kerry. I would be open to voting for someone other than Bush if I were presented with a candidate that I felt comfortable with. I have no problems with the Iraq war or the tax cuts, however, I do feel that we could use some help in Iraq. I think a reason more nations don't participate in rebuilding Iraq is partly to do with the fact that their leaders don't like Bush. A new president would give other countries leaders the political escape they need to help with Iraq without looking like their helping Bush. (There are other reasons I feel that countries don't want to help with Iraq as well but they aren't relevant to this discussion).
Go ahead and laugh and ridicule it if you want and then change the channel, but it's a valid point. It's not like aliens from space are controlling our system of political discourse, or are forcing us to watch the Ashlee Simpson show. It's people like you and me that do that kind of thing. Look at the Theresa Heinz Kerry thread. There are legions of loyal republicans in it trying to explain why it's a matter of overriding national importance that she told some reporter who was harassing her to shove it. The whole thing stinks to me of awful, irrelevant smear politics. But the people who think otherwise are normal, rational people doing this; they're not from another planet.
i agree...it is a valid point. we get the leadership we demand. i won't argue that. i still am not going to defend the guy for saying it. and i wouldn't defend bush for saying it. if you're out there making substance-less, empty comments, and you're running for political office...you're subject to the public's criticism. including mine. for the record...i don't watch the ashlee simpson show. go smarty go.
Excellent post, Sam. As someone who's gone to some of these and had the opportunity to hear some candidates running for President when they weren't in front of TV cameras, I can tell you that it's often quite different from the "scripted" TV/radio appearances. As a country, we don't vote nearly enough or get involved nearly enough in the process. And then everyone complains about who they end up with. I get so sick and tired hearing the familiar refrain, "What difference does it make? Why should I bother? They're all the same, every damn one of them!" They're not all the same. The 2000 election proved that beyond a shadow of doubt, if anyone needed convincing. Less than half of the people who could vote, do. That's if they were registered and bothered to take the few minutes of their "precious time." And that means a minority of voters decides who gets elected. It's a national scandal. Don't gripe later if you didn't vote. You have no basis to complain.
The United States needs mandatory voting after the age of 18. Then we would see a genuine public opinion poll.
Just look at how irritible the liberals have become! The once jovial distributors of liberal propaganda have morphed into angry, bitter cynics who are disillusioned with the entire political process! Have they not had their nap today.... or are they slowly recognizing that they nominated the wrong guy and his message isn't being received by the voting public.... What is the catalyst that will catapult the liberals to the Presidency? THERE IS NONE. And the liberals are starting to recognize this after the lackluster convention. They have played all their cards, and they haven't broken through. What's left to try? A series of books? A 'documentary' that slanders the President? An intelligence 'scandal'? A prison interrogation 'scandal'? The nomination of a VP? Millions of dollars poured into ads? A convention during prime time? Whoops! You liberals tried all that, and it didn't get you anywhere. Meanwhile Rove & Co have quite a few more cards to play. Poor liberals, it just might be a long November for you....
...pandering is fun! Daily Hip-Hop News: 'I'm fascinated by Hip-Hop," says Prez Candidate John Kerry Wednesday - March 31, 2004 by Rich Rock "I'm fascinated by Rap and Hip-Hop" said Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry during an MTV Choose or Lose forum. Offering up a heavy dose of street credibility, Kerry defended gangsta rap, freedom of speech and the realities of street life. Kerry spoke with MTV's Gideon Yago and took questions from the audience last night in MTV's annual Choose or Lose forum. The youth voting movement this year endeavors to get 20 million new voters to the polls and impact what is projected to be a tight presidential race. The Boston-born heir by marriage to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, offered his perspective on rap music as the voice of the streets. "I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important." When questioned about offensive rap lyrics, Kerry said there is a line to be drawn, but defended freedom of speech. "I think that there is a line you draw between government intervention and the right of speech and the right for people to express themselves, but do I think there are standards of decency in that? Yes, I do. Do I think that sometimes some lyrics in some songs have stepped over what I consider to be a reasonable line? Yeah, I do. I think when you start talking about killing cops or something like that, it bothers me." Calling rap a "reflection of life", Kerry empathized with the struggles reflected in the music. "I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that. I'm not for the government censoring or stepping in. But I don't think it's inappropriate occasionally to talk about what you think is a standard or what you think is a value that is worth trying to live up to." http://www.sohh.com/thewire/read.php?contentID=5697 Democratic Presidential Candidate Digs 'Poetry' of Rap Kerry Panders to MTV by L. Brent Bozell, III Posted Apr 14, 2004 MTV thrives on its image as America's leading connoisseur of cool, and in election years it tries to make a big show out of adding their coolness to youth voting. MTV's "Rock the Vote" effort has tried to register young voters for more than a decade, but it hasn't been a rousing success. Only 29% of 18-24-year-olds voted in the 2000 election, with their votes divided about evenly between Bush and Gore, something surely not pleasing to MTV. In every presidential cycle, MTV airs a pile of "Choose or Lose" specials to match major candidates with typically embarrassing young questioners. The latest special came on March 30 with Democratic nominee John Kerry, who wowed liberal reporters and MTV fans by suggesting that he is hip enough to dig rap music. Yes, it's hard to imagine stolid, graying Kerry wearing a backward baseball cap and a throwback NBA jersey, peppering his speeches with "ho" and "mack daddy," but that's the image he wanted to convey: I'm not some fuddy-duddy dad who's going to send rappers to their room. In full pandering mode, Kerry insisted to MTV news poseur Gideon Yago that he was down with the beat: "I'm fascinated by rap and hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger. A lot of social energy in it. I think you better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important." What does that mean? Is anger--even rhyming anger--the best kind of "social energy" for the country? More importantly, doesn't Kerry recognize what so much of rap music is today--profane, sex-obsessed, selfish, greedy--in sum, the opposite of public-spirited? Look at the top of the pop charts today. Lil Jon & the Eastside Boyz rap all about "getting low" with women, with less-than-intellectual lyrics like "skeet skeet skeet motherf-----, skeet skeet skeet g--damn." ("Skeet" is slang for ejaculate.) Jay-Z is "feeling like a pimp *****." J-Kwon is bummed because a woman wasn't enjoying his mar1juana: "Smokin my blunt, sayin' she ain't havin' fun. B----, give it back, now you don't get none." The spirit of the hottest rap music today doesn't channel idealism or any positive "social energy." It thumps out of the radio selling a philosophy of get loaded, get sex, get some goodies, and get out of any loving commitments. Since no one at MTV would say these lyrics were objectionable, Kerry added the old line about rap being the authentic voice of the inner city: "I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that. I'm not for the government censoring or stepping in. But I don't think it's inappropriate occasionally to talk about what you think is a standard or what you think is a value that is worth trying to live up to." Kerry didn't get very specific about standards, only mouthing the obvious line that rap about killing policemen isn't cool. But parents today could use a prominent politician--in either party or both--offering a discouraging word to these MTV role models teaching children, black and white, that it is somehow cool to talk like a gangster, use and/or sell drugs, debase women, and generally act like a completely self-obsessed jerk. For his part, George W. Bush has never said a single word about popular culture. He lets down his natural supporters by acting like a conscientious objector to the culture wars. His religious faith is touted, but he hides it under a bushel basket on our so-called entertainment. He won't dip a toe into the cultural wave created by The Passion of the Christ, and he's certainly not going to say a word about the profane rap on the radio. President Bush has made it a priority in his efforts to promote faith-based initiatives to meet black ministers in churches; to talk to single mothers who hug him and cry tears of joy about making it off welfare; and to see the children who are neglected by arrogant young men who get the sex but send no checks. So, George Bush, put your mouth where the children's record money is. John Kerry, cool it on the coolness. Someone in a leadership role in this country ought to speak up for that broad majority of parents and say: Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be nasty rappers. Mr. Bozell is president of the Media Research Center. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3588
I agree with the sentiment that we should make it possible for everyone to vote and there should be no impediment. I think they should expand the hours for voting, and absentee voting already makes it easy enough. I disagree completely with telling people they have to vote or even telling them they should vote. People that care enough about who is leading them are the people that care enough to figure out who they actually want to vote for. I know too many people that go and vote and just pick people because they heard their name on TV once. Is that better than someone who does not vote? No .. In fact I truly believe it is worse.
Sure he can say something genuine. Then in the next sentence he can say something not so genuine. I would appreciate his comments maybe if he went on BET and said it... Or maybe he can go on BET and talk about how much he likes Christina Aguilera's deep & fiesty lyrics.
