In the United States, anyone who played sports, a musical instrument, or were taught in school have all been told one thing, "When you stumble and fall, always go back to the fundamentals." Fundamentals in anything, are the basis of growing, talent, and/or learning. They are also a key component of a persons decisions and who they are internally (possibly externally). Therefore, when looking at the political candidates, for President of the United States, between John McCain (the Republican candidate), or Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (the Democratic nominees), what are their fundamental principals? What do they believe in, both personally and ethically, on certain main topics? Maybe more importantly, where do they stand, on the several key issues, American people are most concerned with?
The fact that Samantha Powers, Barack Obama's adviser on foreign affairs, came out on the BBC against Obama (basically resigning), is not about Obama. What was in her words, in that interview, was just short of "Annis' Bizarre" (saying Obama not having a plan to get out of Iraq, he could not provide the complete withdrawal strategy due to what may/may not happen between now and election time, and she also called Hillary a "Monster"). Then John McCain's coverage on the news, Internet, and print media, was on a "New York Times" reporter, asking McCain whether he was considering having John Kerry as a Vice Presidential candidate. Not letting the topic drop, after McCain completely snuffed the question, she continued to hammer on McCain. Finally, getting the word "angry" into the conversation, which will be printed tomorrow (portraying McCain out to be a hot head, who blow his stack at reporters, for absolutely nothing). Are these things the "fundamental issues and insights into the candidates" that the American people need to know? Not only is there nothing substantive in this, but it is counter productive to the American political system, and is actually what needs to change (no pun intended, since Obama is part of the problem).
The fundamental things that the people, of America, need to demand from the press are not hard to find. The media outlets, have a job, and it is to get the fundamental issues and the ethics/decisions of each candidates out. It is not to dwell on perimeter issues, blood spilled to fill the front page, and definitely not whether a candidate puts a flag on his lapel, whether a former governor (like Ray Mabus of Mississippi, implying that Hillary Clinton is treating "Afro-Americans," as "second class") is blatantly implanting race into a primary, or any of the other countless fringe issues the media keeps hammering into American's brains. The fundamental political issues of the current democratic nomination process, and eventually the general election, are the economy, illegal immigration, where the candidates stand and who they would consider for judges, the life issues (abortion, stem cell research, etc.), foreign policies (Iraq, Iran, and how to deal overseas with China and Russia), and trade (NAFTA, import/export deals, and what is coming into the country). The issues above are just some of the issues, but they are a good start. Every single reporter, blogger, and media person in the world should be demanding answers, to where each candidate stands on these issues, SPECIFICALLY. If they continue to stay in lock step, with the same questions, then the candidates would be forced to answer them outright, or not answer and leave the Americans with a direct action on how to vote.
Finally, in the debates and along the remainder of the campaign trail, the media and moderators need to ask the specific questions in prime time. If they get the same "Talking Points" back, then the question needs to be readdressed to the candidate, until an answer is given. If each major network, paper, and Internet site would follow this way, then it would be an actual step in seeing where every candidate stands on the issues, which is what Americans need to know, in order to cast a correct vote. (Not to get ahead of the whole process, but think if the candidates were treated to only the questions that mattered, maybe it would filter down to congressman, senators, and on down the line and all voters would know where every candidate stood.) Fundamental questions require fundamental actions/answers, the candidates should be representing the people, not special interests and the media elite. The only way the political process is going to change, is if the media does their job. Getting out answers, on the topics effecting Americans today and in the future (not "talking points and talk around the issue points") will expose, or will illuminate the candidate for who they are and what they stand for. In addition, if the media outlets and papers mix in the main points of the candidates past and where they personally stand on issues (of merit and ethics), then the public would be as learned as they care to be.
No matter what way a person views the issues, believes in their hearts things should be, or whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents fundamentals shape their lives. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are no different, and should be viewed, interviewed, and ultimately elected by the same merits. Voters of America must know the fundamentals that galvanize the candidates, on the issues and in their personal lives (based on decisions made, deals and legislation passed, various other things), or else they will be just voting blind. Maybe worse, Americans will be voting on issues in the media, that carry the weight of an "Entertainment Tonight," or "TMZ.com" article and/or show, rather than the issues needed to elect a President of the United States. Without the fundamentals of the candidates, fully vetted in the media and on the Internet, Americans will be voting on the information and questions used to look at Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, rather than looking at the issues and fundamental information needed to elect the President.
The fact that Samantha Powers, Barack Obama's adviser on foreign affairs, came out on the BBC against Obama (basically resigning), is not about Obama. What was in her words, in that interview, was just short of "Annis' Bizarre" (saying Obama not having a plan to get out of Iraq, he could not provide the complete withdrawal strategy due to what may/may not happen between now and election time, and she also called Hillary a "Monster"). Then John McCain's coverage on the news, Internet, and print media, was on a "New York Times" reporter, asking McCain whether he was considering having John Kerry as a Vice Presidential candidate. Not letting the topic drop, after McCain completely snuffed the question, she continued to hammer on McCain. Finally, getting the word "angry" into the conversation, which will be printed tomorrow (portraying McCain out to be a hot head, who blow his stack at reporters, for absolutely nothing). Are these things the "fundamental issues and insights into the candidates" that the American people need to know? Not only is there nothing substantive in this, but it is counter productive to the American political system, and is actually what needs to change (no pun intended, since Obama is part of the problem).
The fundamental things that the people, of America, need to demand from the press are not hard to find. The media outlets, have a job, and it is to get the fundamental issues and the ethics/decisions of each candidates out. It is not to dwell on perimeter issues, blood spilled to fill the front page, and definitely not whether a candidate puts a flag on his lapel, whether a former governor (like Ray Mabus of Mississippi, implying that Hillary Clinton is treating "Afro-Americans," as "second class") is blatantly implanting race into a primary, or any of the other countless fringe issues the media keeps hammering into American's brains. The fundamental political issues of the current democratic nomination process, and eventually the general election, are the economy, illegal immigration, where the candidates stand and who they would consider for judges, the life issues (abortion, stem cell research, etc.), foreign policies (Iraq, Iran, and how to deal overseas with China and Russia), and trade (NAFTA, import/export deals, and what is coming into the country). The issues above are just some of the issues, but they are a good start. Every single reporter, blogger, and media person in the world should be demanding answers, to where each candidate stands on these issues, SPECIFICALLY. If they continue to stay in lock step, with the same questions, then the candidates would be forced to answer them outright, or not answer and leave the Americans with a direct action on how to vote.
Finally, in the debates and along the remainder of the campaign trail, the media and moderators need to ask the specific questions in prime time. If they get the same "Talking Points" back, then the question needs to be readdressed to the candidate, until an answer is given. If each major network, paper, and Internet site would follow this way, then it would be an actual step in seeing where every candidate stands on the issues, which is what Americans need to know, in order to cast a correct vote. (Not to get ahead of the whole process, but think if the candidates were treated to only the questions that mattered, maybe it would filter down to congressman, senators, and on down the line and all voters would know where every candidate stood.) Fundamental questions require fundamental actions/answers, the candidates should be representing the people, not special interests and the media elite. The only way the political process is going to change, is if the media does their job. Getting out answers, on the topics effecting Americans today and in the future (not "talking points and talk around the issue points") will expose, or will illuminate the candidate for who they are and what they stand for. In addition, if the media outlets and papers mix in the main points of the candidates past and where they personally stand on issues (of merit and ethics), then the public would be as learned as they care to be.
No matter what way a person views the issues, believes in their hearts things should be, or whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents fundamentals shape their lives. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are no different, and should be viewed, interviewed, and ultimately elected by the same merits. Voters of America must know the fundamentals that galvanize the candidates, on the issues and in their personal lives (based on decisions made, deals and legislation passed, various other things), or else they will be just voting blind. Maybe worse, Americans will be voting on issues in the media, that carry the weight of an "Entertainment Tonight," or "TMZ.com" article and/or show, rather than the issues needed to elect a President of the United States. Without the fundamentals of the candidates, fully vetted in the media and on the Internet, Americans will be voting on the information and questions used to look at Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, rather than looking at the issues and fundamental information needed to elect the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment