Grab the remote

Democratic Party, Republican Party, Issues for the next President

Written by Michael Vass

Speaking of our choices on who will lead the nation on January 2009, I read a very interesting piece from Jon Schwedler. The point of the piece is the lackluster ideals promoted by the leading candidates and the desire in the nation for none of the above. As obvious as it may seem, neither political party seems interested to provide a non-extreme candidate.

We have the leading Democratic candidates pandering to the far-left, fearful of offending or deviating from the views of groups like MoveOn.org. There is no question that such organizations are the fringe of the Democratic Party, yet that fringe is also where a lot of money is.

On the other side we have a Republican Party that is staunch in removing illegal aliens, building walls, and continuing a war that is unpopular (whether or not anyone agrees with its current status).

We have multiple pundits that continue to mention that both parties need to move to the middle to win the election. They say that the first to do this will win the election. Most agree that a move to the middle will occur after the primaries are done.

Think about that a moment. All the candidates are playing to extremists to get a primary win, and then they will abandon those positions to get elected President. I have to wonder, which position is a lie and which is the truth.

Can we really believe that a candidate that stressed an extreme view to win a primary and changes to a softer view for the general election is trustworthy? That they will really promote the best interest of the nation? That they won’t be beholden to those same extremist groups when they are elected?

There was an old saying in Moscow that I recall being told. It was in relation to commercials on TV and billboards. This was back in 1991ish, and there was little advertising to be seen in the city. I had asked why.

“Because if you have to advertise how good something is, it probably isn’t.”

I’ve long thought that to be an accurate description of most products being advertised. I see no real difference when you apply the same thing to the candidates. They are scrambling for money so they can sell the general populace on how good they are, yet they are no where near what the main populace things on most issues. How good can they really be?

I understand that one of these candidates will be President. I understand that to get a great President is too much to ask for in this television commercial driven, political wish-wash, environment that is American politics of the 21st century. Still I’d enjoy a bit better than what we are being offered.

Media is lining up to say Sen. Clinton is the Democratic candidate, 4 months before a single vote has been entered and while the public continuously says that they hate her intensely. Media says that Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican candidate (unless you go by the Iowa straw poll that says it’s Mitt Romney) and he is running on the image of his post-9/11 actions.

Why can’t the media shut up on who will win whatever and just say this is the records of these candidates? Why can’t they just say this is what they think on this issue and that, and back up their positions with facts they have said and voted? Why doesn’t media and extreme political organizations stay away and let the public decide what is best for the nation?

I think Mr. Schwedler gave a great reason.

“We go through the election process in a near-catatonic state, too lazy to get up, grab the remote, and change the candidate.”

I agree we need to take action, because just sitting back isn’t working.

admin @ October 5, 2007