Re-Running 2000
As a resident of the state of Florida I’m not exactly a fan of the 2000 election, and when I start reading the political coverage and see the same garbage being recycled for the 2008 election I get a little testy.
The coverage of Democrats is going to the the same lightweight “style section” reporting that characterized 2000. I realized that the coverage of policy issues, like foreign affairs, health care, poverty, budgets, is not a world of excitement, but that is the way people know who to vote for. When all you write about is how much someone weighs, how much a haircut costs, what color their clothes are, you need to drop your “political badge” in the box on your way out of the building and start looking for a job in the Sunday magazine style section.
I, personally, don’t want to have a beer with any of the candidates. I gave up drinking a long time ago, and the ability to not get thrown out of a bar is not much a qualification for someone who is going to control the nuclear code of the United States.
I need to know if someone has actually been successful at something. Have they worked in a position of responsibility and what was their job performance? Do they have a working knowledge of the American system of government as outlined in the Constitution? Have they shown a willingness to actually show up for a 40 hour workweek? Are they going to embarrass the United States when meeting with foreign leaders? Do they know how to speak in complete sentences?
Do they have any goals? Do they really understand capitalism and basic economics? Can they balance a checkbook? Do they now know, or have they ever known, anyone named Monica?
Voters are hiring someone to lead the nation, not star in a movie. Why don’t we try to concentrate on the policies this time.
A minor suggestion for this year – why don’t we try real debates instead of modified press conferences.
6 comments
What?!?! Are you saying that what they wear is unimportant? You don’t want to have a beer with any of them?!? Now, that’s just plain UnAmerican! I kid, please don’t hurt me.
I agree with you, fullheartedly. It’s irritating that we don’t get a lot of information that would be more telling on how the candidate would do the job.
It’s absurd, OWL. We know more about the people who work on our cars, than people running for President.
i like the people who work on my car, but that’s mostly because they do a good job for a reasonable price when they work on my car. i’m not sure i can even remember what their hair looks like.
on the other hand, i can see definite advantages to having a president whose primary qualifications are good looks and the ability to schmooz. the first candidate who says “my platform is: [1] as commander-in-chief, i’d give the order to bring all our troops home asap from the muddle east [sic] and let the military brass handle the logisitcs; [2] party hearty with as many other world leaders as i can in the next four years; [3] domestic issues, bah, you citizens are all big kids now and can work it out among yourselves” will likely get my vote.
we’d probably have been a lot better off if bush had spent the past 6 years clearing brush and cheney had spent them quail hunting.
Boring can be good. I like boring, knowing that today will be a lot like yesterday.
My qualifications are low, someone competent enough to run a fast food restaurant without going broke.
boring is good. a fast-food presidency? ok, the dog votes for taco bell.
Any national franchise will do as they all have the same basic training program.