The Debates Should Come First

Immediately after the nominees have been decided, the candidates should hold their debates.  Then maybe they would be worth something.

This is how I'd like to see it.  There is either an incumbent that has his record to run on or defend or two candidates who have been beaten up during their respective primaries.  That's the time they should face off.  Before the media, their advisers and PACs and Super PACs can get a word in edgewise and the candidates may still bear some semblance of being a human individual rather than the robotic creation of their handlers.

The policies at issue will have been decided.  This time it's the economy and due to unexpected circumstances, foreign policy.  For the sake of argument, lets stick with the economy and all it entails like taxes,  jobs, etc.  Each candidate will be there on the strength of their policies, having beaten back other challengers.

Take them one at a time and have each state his or her position, defend it and explain how it will be implemented.  Each is allowed to challenge the other's ideas.  May the one who has the policy and the ability to put it into practice win.

Hopefully this would happen before they are so over coached they no longer recognize from whence they came.  Perhaps they would actually lay out a plan they could campaign on rather than merely demonizing the other candidate and the candidate's party.

When you come right down to it, what is past is past.  If it needs fixed explain how you're going to do it.  Leave personality, wealth, religion and wives and their gardens and horses out of it.

Of course for this to work the parties would have to agree to support their candidate with more than faint praise.  They would have to have nominees for other offices who are on the same wave length.

Oh, I almost forgot.  The media.  We'd have to have a media that returned to the basics of being objective.  This perpetual fan club for Democrats gets tiresome even though its totally predictable.  Most of us are too lazy to do the necessary research to sort it out.  It isn't easy since the media is known for it's left leaning bias.  How do you circumnavigate it?

I don't know.  Ask the candidates directly?  Seek out one liberal and one conservative to share the duties of moderating a debate without weighting it one way or the other.

What?  Wake up?  Was I dreaming?  The first debate is Wednesday?  How anticlimactic!  We've already been told ad nauseam what Romney has to do to win and what Obama has to do to win.  We can pretty much guess what the spin will be  afterwards from both sides.

Oh well.  What will be will be.  Yawn.  What's sad is we won't get to see either man say, "I am what I am."  There are just too many fingers in the pie.

Winning No Matter The Cost

One by one they come tip toeing back.  Newt Gingrich, former Senator Kit Bond, Senator Roy Blunt. Who will be next to reverse course and come creeping back to Todd Akin's camp and why?

Who is any ones guess but the why is obvious.  The Republicans need him if they are to have any hope of winning the Senate.  He had actually been ahead of incumbant Claire McCaskill for awhile.  Until he made a humongous gaffe on national TV by stating a woman's body is programmed to keep from getting pregnant in the case of a legitimate rape.  Remember the hue and cry that was raised?  Rightfully so.

There was a massive call for him to quit the race so a gaffe free candidate could take his place.  He refused. He was denied funds.  Still he refused.  Romney asked him to drop out.  He refused.  But he did  apologize and it would appear that now all is forgiven.

After all, Newt Gingrich suggests the Republicans should support him because they have a 'moral obligation'  to win a majority in the Senate.  Strange, he doesn't seem to feel a 'moral obligation' to support his party's candidate for President.

With Akin being solidly pro-life, I'd like to think he'd have a better grasp of how women get pregnant and that there are no degrees of rape.  He apologized for what?  Being ignorant?  Nope.  I don't think so.  More then likely he meant what he said, believed it for whatever reason, and apologized hoping to make it go away.

It worked to an extent.  As I've mentioned, supporters are returning.  After all he apologized.  I don't buy it.  It has now been revealed that he was arrested many years ago for an anti-abortion protest.  I don't have a problem with that per se.  Lots of people have been arrested for participating in protests.

What I question is if he was involved in such a protest would he or would he not be expected to be familiar with what brings about the need for an abortion?  Like pregnancy.  Many times from rape.  Or was he just a young buck out there protesting about something he knew nothing about because it was politic?  Either way, he doesn't look good.

The whole situation reeks.  It's one reason why politics and politicians turn people off.  Everyone who is supporting this man would seem to have a self righteous reason.  They want to prove how magnanimous they are.  They can forgive.  They understand. They need the seat in the Senate.  If they don't get it there will a whole lot more than a pregnancy aborted.

I'm sorry.  Honest I am.  I'll correct the error of my ways.  Until it happens again.

Politics And The Red Carpet Factor

I've come to the conclusion we go about deciding who our leaders should be in exactly the wrong way.  It's what happens when you get old and things have changed to the point you no longer want to keep up.  You give in to being judgemental and un-hip or whatever the current term may be.

We should be looking at the awards shows and process. The Emmy's have just concluded.  There are so many categories it's hard to keep track, yet there are a set number of nominees for each.  Rather than the nominating and electing bodies let's substitute the American voter.  In this system we'd be able to vote for not only President and Vice President but also the supporting cast.  We'd get to vote on the quality of their policies and the people who frame them.  Actually we should be doing that now but it's been lost in the foot lights.

The lead actors and more noticeable supporting actors make the rounds of the talk shows.  Not unlike politics.  Forget the Sunday talking heads, real talk shows.  You know, like The View.  Who ever gets booked the most will of course win at the polls because it's the self promotion that counts.  Not the quality of the production.

It's no wonder the President is leading.  He wins the slobber factor - you know, when the hosts slobber all over you.  Consider candidate and spouse as interchangeable now because both are often interviewed and the judgement on one carries over to the other.

 So who has been where lately?  Obama and Michelle, of course on The View.  The Eye Candy Award consideration here. Forget that he himself suggested it.  That's part of the self-promotion.

Ann Romney on  Live! With Kelly and Michael  went for the Boxers or Briefs Award in her discussion of what Mitt wears to bed and how they squeeze their toothpaste or Michelle's being ready to be tucked in.

 Honestly, have these people no pride?  No sense of privacy? No dignity?  Do we really care?  Does it make them worthy or unworthy of the office depending on how they answer? Well, of course it does.  Why else would they do it?  It's all part of the busy schedules that preclude meeting with world leaders.

We hear about Mitt singing on horse back and are to privy to Obama singing a ditty.  We see them both on Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Entertainment Tonight and in People Magazine.  We listen to them discuss Snookie and what kind of chili they like and peanut butter and chocolate milk. Ah, it makes them more like us, more real.

They do have their limits however.  Obama refused to appear on Saturday Night Live  because it's un-presidential and Romney refused The View until pressure made him succumb.  His reluctance was most likely because he knew they like Obama better.

One last criteria to be considered is the Red Carpet Factor.  Who looks the best on awards night.  That's a tough call.  Both couples are quite stylish.  I'd guess it would boil down to a matter of taste.  Not like Hillary who often looks like she killed the drapes.

That makes it really tough when you walk up the red carpet and the polls are tied. What will break it?

It obviously won't be opinions on substance like terrorism or jobs or the economy.  It's just too tough to ferret out the truth, to think things through and make an informed decision.

More likely it will be, "He looked hot on The View" or "Piers Morgan didn't have him on", things that really matter.  Why sweat the small stuff?

Mr. President, What About US?

As the President made his speech to the U.N. today I wondered how many of the world leaders in attendance were feeling miffed by the lack of his personal attention.  Maybe what they might have wanted to say face to face is just some of that noise he prefers to block while he tries to avoid more bumps in the road.  After all, Whoopie, Babs and company make for much smoother travel.

That being said, he really missed a great opportunity in talking with the ladies of the day.  He could have taken his U.N. speech and parsed it for domestic consumption and explained a few things to us.

Let's take his comments about Islam and interject the good ole U.S. of A. into them.  I'll take a portion of his statement and put my terms in parentheses.  For instance:

Let us remember that Muslims (American voters ) have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.

A politics based only on anger - one based on dividing the world (country) between us and them - not only sets back international (political) cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Maybe most importantly:

Together, we must work together towards a world (country ) where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Mr. President, listen to your own words - and mine and apply them to your country before trying to apply them to the entire world.  If you still don't get it I'll post a video.

The $70,000 Denial

It's true, some times, that desperate times call for desperate measures.  But this?

The entire middle east plus has been erupting in a wave of anti-American rage for better than a week now.  We've gone from blaming it on the video the Islamists say they are protesting to admitting that at least the attack on the consulate in Libya was indeed an act of (gasp) war.

Still the video is being used as the excuse for the rampages that are still taking lives. What to do to?  How do we convince the angry mobs that the United States government was in no way involved with the making of the video and that it deplores the disparagement of any religion?  Are we missing a point here?

Why bother?  They aren't going to listen number one.  Number two, 99% of those protesters haven't, and never will, even see the video.  It seems just a few words from their Imams is enough.  What might those words be?  Protest the video?  Protest against the Americans for they have insulted Mohammad? Probably neither.  I'd guess more likely it's something along the lines of,  "We've got the momentum - keep it going!  Death to the infidels!  Death to America!"

With that in mind, why in the world did the State Department spend $70,000 to produce a video reiterating the joint statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton and distribute in Pakistan alone?

Well, they had to something, right?  Actually I thought the whole idea was border line groveling. It will fall on deaf ears and actually I think it makes us look less than sincere. Besides, isn't it time to accept the video for what it is - an excuse to riot!  Put out a video on the unacceptability of that!


 

 Even though it's an exercise in futility I'd like to think we could have produced something that smacked of something at least approaching sincerity! Neither Obama nor Clinton have one iota of passion in their voices as they speak.  Well, it was a quick and dirty.

Then why bother?  It's not the money.  $70,000 is chump change.  It's the embarrassment of trying to do something in seconds that hasn't been done over centuries and missing the point to boot.  To add insult to injury, it was done on the cheap.  Just hope this is another video the Pakistanis won't see!