Political Sticks and Stones
I'm not sure if my dear readers have been following the goings on in Iowa or New Hampshire. I will admit, I myself have been having a hard time following along. Not particularly because I am unsure of who to support in this election, but mainly because the coverage is currently 100% focussed on the he-said-she-said.
Take this front-page blurb on the New York Times (my paper of record).
G.O.P. Debate Is a Slugfest
After taking a pounding on Saturday, Mitt Romney struck back with a vengeance on Sunday.
Um, struck back? Did he actually hit Mike Huckabee with a stick? Unfortunately, no. The article details a Republican debate in New Hampshire, where apparently, Romney said critical things about his opponents. Dog bites man, much?
There's another article about a speech Bill Clinton gave on behalf of his wife's campaign. According to the reporter, the speech was poorly attended and Bill was sleepy. And this is news, how?
I don't care how Obama is polling among dark-haired factory workers ages 22 to 37, and I don't care if Bill Clinton's suits were laundered at tremendous expense. I am vaguely interested in the candidates demeanor, but only a little. What I want to know, and what I want from the New York Times, is the candidates plans for their Presidency.
And I want specifics.
It's not that hard. I have been sitting here for fifteen minutes and I have already asked seven questions about issues that are commonly addressed by the candidates and which I haven't seen answered in the press.
Maybe I missed the part of the campaign where the candidates flushed out their views on the myriad issues that face this country today. And those views are now so clear and universally well-known that putting them in the newspaper would seem redundant. Since now they've moved on to making detailed big charts of where the candidates are spending their television advertising money. Woop-de-frickin-do.
3 comments:
dude, you seriously want to know about the candidates' stances on issues? specifics on policies? i say: booooring. the american people want conflict and controversy. we want snarky jibes at flip-flopping behavior, sordid details of infidelity and misappropriated funds, and "oh-no-he-didn't" observations on poor sartorial decisions. we care about issues like this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_mitt_romney_is_candidate
we want to be entertained.
or maybe, we want hope. (or to be audacious enough to hope.)
anyway, if you're looking for an aggregator of the candidates' various policies, i suggest checking out these sites:
candidates + issues matrix:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/
glassbooth.org:
http://glassbooth.org/explore/
glassbooth also has an interesting quiz that shows which candidates your views most align with.
dude, I was totally also thinking this, like about how the press doesn't actually report their stands on the issues. Then I had dinner with AM and somebody was like, "well the dems are all alike anyway," and AM was like, "dude, they actually differ wildly. Like, Obama is for an immediate pull out and Hillary isn't." and then i was like, where is AM reading this stuff?
Well, anyway, it's a moot point for me because I am voting Duck + Horse.
I have taken that glassbooth.org quiz (twice actually) and both times it gave me Dennis Kucinich. (And no, I didn't select "Has Hot Wife" as a significant issue). The matrix put me more in line with Clinton, though.
My problem isn't that the candidates stances on the issues aren't out there, I know with a little research I can dig this stuff up.
The problem is that when Obama or Clinton or McCain or anyone give a speech there's no coverage of what is said. So, Hillary Clinton goes out and gives a twenty minute speech and answers questions for an hour and the only thing that gets reported is that she once hinted that "hope and unity" isn't a practical policy position.
Post a Comment