What makes a candidate worth hearing?

Presidential Candidate

Written by Michael Vass

I have read, and heard, laughter at the thought of Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and other candidates’ chances of becoming President in 2008. The word long shot is not even close to the expectations of even the most hopeful of supporters, yet they have all made the best effort they could to present what they believe is important for the next President and the nation. For that alone, they deserve respect.

Of course, respect is hardly what they have gotten of late. And I’m upset by this. Not because I think they are great leaders, or that they have plans that are superior to those of the frontrunners. I’m upset because they are basically ignored and banned.

Recently Mike Gravel was shunned by NBC in a debate. He was not invited and there was nothing that would make them change their mind. Even an offer of $1 million in cash or advertising was met with a cold shoulder. That was money from a supporter of Gravel, and it was just to let him take the stage.

Then again, considering recent debates even if he was on stage his chances of getting more than 2 or 3 questions in the whole night would be slim. The question why is that the case should be asked. David Shribman did discuss the issue, with the conclusion that

“…to keep presidential debates open to the mice (and rats) of the lower-tier presidential candidates until three or four months before the primaries and caucuses begin, giving them a chance to air their views and perhaps to catch air and take off. But after that, serious people have to make serious choices - and one of the choices they have to make is to differentiate among the candidates, and that means limiting debates to the people who have a chance to make a difference.”

The key point is “serious people have to make serious choices”. Who are the serious people? Who chooses which voices we will hear? What factor is the critical one in deciding a real choice or a loon with fringe beliefs?

If you ask the media, it seems that money is the criteria. That and polls. If you garner enough money, you are a serious candidate, no mater what you say on stage. In fact if you are like some candidates you can not make definitive statement on virtually any issue and still be considered a frontrunner by the media. That means that an ‘empty suit’ can be featured and presented to the nation, while a crusader of an actual cause is shown the exit.

Isn’t that democratic. Don’t you feel the patriotism? Thank goodness that the major media is there to sort this out for the American public. You know, those executives that think the average citizen is too dumb to enjoy a comedy without a laugh track, that ‘reality’ programs are the most important show to produce since people can’t follow storylines, and that the diversity found in virtually every city and town in this nation is an unnecessary option in casting actors. These are the same brilliant minds that have decided that the rape, torture and kidnapping of a woman in West Virginia is not news, but 2 days of news about Ellen Degeneres whining about her dog is. Oh yeah we can trust them.

And of course there are the polls. These are the tools used by too many politicians to tell the general populace that candidate X is in a lead, unless you consider a poll done the same day by another group that says candidate Y is leading. Not to mention the sometimes subtle differences in speeches and debates made by the various candidates as polls feedback what issue is most current in the minds of extremists in the party (as they are the ones most likely to come out and vote in primaries in large predictable numbers – or so polls say).

So how does this small group of supposed ‘serious people’ get to decide what is a ‘serious choice’ for the few candidates that get airtime to present to the overwhelming majority of America. I can’t even imagine since $1 million is not considered enough for a declared candidate, veteran and politician to get on the stage. Do I think that Mike Gravel, Ron Paul or any of the other minor candidates have the best solution for America? No. Then again I doubt that any candidate around now is far better.

In 10 months of campaigns, debates, interviews, commercials, spam mail blasts and appearances none have come up with any real plans for just about any issue facing America. Several have taken multiple sides of the issues. One or 2 are steadfast in their support of extreme fringe groups that reflect probably less than 5% of the nation on a good day on their least important issues, and insult a majority of Americans on the major issues they pronounce. And then there are the minor candidates that have firm beliefs they stand by regardless of the money they get from special interest groups or ultra-fanatical groups.

Maybe they can’t win a Presidential race, maybe they don’t have views the majority can accept. But they are honest consistent and give an answer when asked a question. They have held political offices, fought in wars, run businesses and lived long enough that they deserve to get asked the big questions in front of the citizens that will ultimately make the choices. And if they don’t fit into the corporate media mold of entertaining the masses with gibberish and half-answers all the better.

I’m a serious person, with a vote and love of my country. I deserve a chance to listen, and potentially disagree, with all the candidates and then make a serious choice. Anything less is not democratic, and definitely not in the advantage of the nation.

Do you agree?

admin @ November 6, 2007