Presidential Politics; Primaries "Primed"
Jeffrey S. Bolz
December 18, 2007
I've heard time and again of the “Clinton Machine” and its runaway, insurmountable strength. The political juggernaut of our time, it truly is a force to be reckoned with. The '08 Presidential race, however, is just heating up; and with less than 17 days till the first primaries set to begin, the gloves are coming off from all candidates.
With several scandals unraveling linking candidates to stealth, underhanded tactics, Clinton appears to have a stranglehold on that arena as well; but isn't alone in the fight.
The mainstream media plays an important role. With today's journalists self-described as liberal at a ratio of 9:1 to conservatives, it's no wonder who the writers and producers of network television curry favor with. By allowing certain candidates to dodge issues or get away with “softball” interviews, the remainder are left to forcibly rant about their own strengths through “talking points” stump speeches, cheating the American voters of fully knowing the entire platforms on which the candidates are running. Few are asked direct questions and, with the plethora of (primary) debates now drawing to a close, little is known of the viewpoints of each candidate or what direction they intend to lead the country if elected. Don't, by any means, think for a moment this was an oversight.
The problem isn't who news agencies are endorsing (openly or secretly advocating), it's that it's done on a level where the majority of readers and viewers aren't aware (or fail to see) the political gamesmanship they are being subjected to. Pandering has become one of the fail-safes of this election; and no matter your nationality, color, race, or ethnicity; the message is that they're all going to be your candidate if elected. But just who are you to them, and how do they know what it is you want? After all, they've all promised to be the “party of the people” and said just about everything each individual minority in this “great country of ours” wants to hear.
THE IMMIGRATION CARD
Just a few weeks ago, you might remember the fiasco that welled over the failure of Mrs. Clinton to answer a simple question during a Democrat Presidential Debate dealing with the illegal immigration issue. Then again, you may not. The MSM (mainstream media) made sure to keep the story as low-key as possible, though credible sources like FoxNews and numerous internet bloggers fought fiercely to spotlight the issue and bring it to the nation's attention. After all, no one disputes that we have a problem with our immigration system; it's the how do we deal with it part they're all haggling over. Mrs. Clinton changed her position after just two minutes during a debate a month ago when asked whether illegal aliens ought to be issued legal driver's licenses or not, backing Governor Spitzer's plan to grant licenses to “undocumented citizens”; basing her positions on political expediency rather than committing firmly to any position where voters might take issue with her. After her embarrassing flip-flop, she ultimately ceased her support of the motion two weeks later, when Mr. Spitzer halted his support for it due to intense public pressure.
Most, especially on the Democrat side of the aisle, are failing to address the illegal immigration issue at all, if with any integrity. Some in the Republican party see fit to pander to their constituency with rhetoric as well, but few are honest enough to speak clearly about what they will do to end this crisis of bureaucratic partisanship that apparently seeks to accomplish one thing and one thing alone: the gaining of the minority and illegal vote. Research polls across the board have indicated that illegals tend to vote Democrat at a 3:1 ratio, leaning the advantage to seriously threaten our nation's two-party system, sending the Republican party the way of the Whigs (which party hasn't been present since its collapse in 1856). No matter where you stand on the key issues surrounding the candidates of future elections, you'd be foolish to think this scenario is far-fetched or too “Orwellian” for the plans that many Socialist agendas, currently being pushed across the country, are interested in seeing become a reality. From socialized health care and taxes to the housing and credit markets; a class warfare is well underway, and some will stop short of nothing to ride out those plans at the expense of the voting taxpayer.
MEDIA ENDORSEMENTS
Both The Boston Globe (Mass) and The Des Moines Registry (Iowa) have recently endorsed Republican Presidential candidate John McCain in the race for the White House. Though controversy over whether or not he is a true conservative abounds, there is speculation in many circles that such media support is apocryphal, intended to create false support among undecided Republican voters who ultimately steer with the majority due to sincere but misguided pressure. During the course of the 2000 election, McCain seemed a shoe-in as he lead the primaries but later faltered and never regained his lost momentum, losing the endorsement to two-term winning and current President, George W. Bush.
The Globe also endorsed Democrat candidate Barack Obama, who is currently under fire by intense rumors originating on the internet, attempting to tie him to Islamic extremists. Already fingers are again pointing at the Clinton campaign as yet another of Hillary's supporting bloggers was fired this week. Using antics like planting questions at town hall meetings, claiming her husband's previous Presidential policies as her own (despite not supporting them at the time), as well as mudslinging hyperbolic assumptions over the internet, Clinton seems to advocate the 'shoot first & apologize later' mentality, though we haven't seen much of the latter.
Though repeated attempts have been made to assert that Obama is or was a practicing Muslim at one time, the issue at hand shouldn't be whether or not Obama has any ties to a Muslim heritage (or any religion, for that matter); it should be whether or not he has the capability and vision to lead our nation and build ties with others. Certainly religion plays an important role in the practitioner's life, giving strength where needed and guiding some to lead a life of meaningful purpose, whatever that purpose may be. But, the media need not encourage nor discredit someone based on their individual, private beliefs; news should be reported, not created, and the people should make up their own minds, despite the documented corruption run amuck over the past years.
The average American, sadly, does not fully vet the candidates themselves, but rather leaves that task to the integrity of the media outlets to reveal (or expose) the weaknesses or strengths of each individual person running for the highest office in the land. This epidemic, as dangerous as it is, leaves only those “elites” with money or the power of influence to beg, buy or steal the support of the unwitting voter.
The best hope is that more people stand by their principles, study the candidates and their positions, and cast their votes with conviction, based on what values best represent them and the future of society as a whole.
With several scandals unraveling linking candidates to stealth, underhanded tactics, Clinton appears to have a stranglehold on that arena as well; but isn't alone in the fight.
The mainstream media plays an important role. With today's journalists self-described as liberal at a ratio of 9:1 to conservatives, it's no wonder who the writers and producers of network television curry favor with. By allowing certain candidates to dodge issues or get away with “softball” interviews, the remainder are left to forcibly rant about their own strengths through “talking points” stump speeches, cheating the American voters of fully knowing the entire platforms on which the candidates are running. Few are asked direct questions and, with the plethora of (primary) debates now drawing to a close, little is known of the viewpoints of each candidate or what direction they intend to lead the country if elected. Don't, by any means, think for a moment this was an oversight.
The problem isn't who news agencies are endorsing (openly or secretly advocating), it's that it's done on a level where the majority of readers and viewers aren't aware (or fail to see) the political gamesmanship they are being subjected to. Pandering has become one of the fail-safes of this election; and no matter your nationality, color, race, or ethnicity; the message is that they're all going to be your candidate if elected. But just who are you to them, and how do they know what it is you want? After all, they've all promised to be the “party of the people” and said just about everything each individual minority in this “great country of ours” wants to hear.
THE IMMIGRATION CARD
Just a few weeks ago, you might remember the fiasco that welled over the failure of Mrs. Clinton to answer a simple question during a Democrat Presidential Debate dealing with the illegal immigration issue. Then again, you may not. The MSM (mainstream media) made sure to keep the story as low-key as possible, though credible sources like FoxNews and numerous internet bloggers fought fiercely to spotlight the issue and bring it to the nation's attention. After all, no one disputes that we have a problem with our immigration system; it's the how do we deal with it part they're all haggling over. Mrs. Clinton changed her position after just two minutes during a debate a month ago when asked whether illegal aliens ought to be issued legal driver's licenses or not, backing Governor Spitzer's plan to grant licenses to “undocumented citizens”; basing her positions on political expediency rather than committing firmly to any position where voters might take issue with her. After her embarrassing flip-flop, she ultimately ceased her support of the motion two weeks later, when Mr. Spitzer halted his support for it due to intense public pressure.
Most, especially on the Democrat side of the aisle, are failing to address the illegal immigration issue at all, if with any integrity. Some in the Republican party see fit to pander to their constituency with rhetoric as well, but few are honest enough to speak clearly about what they will do to end this crisis of bureaucratic partisanship that apparently seeks to accomplish one thing and one thing alone: the gaining of the minority and illegal vote. Research polls across the board have indicated that illegals tend to vote Democrat at a 3:1 ratio, leaning the advantage to seriously threaten our nation's two-party system, sending the Republican party the way of the Whigs (which party hasn't been present since its collapse in 1856). No matter where you stand on the key issues surrounding the candidates of future elections, you'd be foolish to think this scenario is far-fetched or too “Orwellian” for the plans that many Socialist agendas, currently being pushed across the country, are interested in seeing become a reality. From socialized health care and taxes to the housing and credit markets; a class warfare is well underway, and some will stop short of nothing to ride out those plans at the expense of the voting taxpayer.
MEDIA ENDORSEMENTS
Both The Boston Globe (Mass) and The Des Moines Registry (Iowa) have recently endorsed Republican Presidential candidate John McCain in the race for the White House. Though controversy over whether or not he is a true conservative abounds, there is speculation in many circles that such media support is apocryphal, intended to create false support among undecided Republican voters who ultimately steer with the majority due to sincere but misguided pressure. During the course of the 2000 election, McCain seemed a shoe-in as he lead the primaries but later faltered and never regained his lost momentum, losing the endorsement to two-term winning and current President, George W. Bush.
The Globe also endorsed Democrat candidate Barack Obama, who is currently under fire by intense rumors originating on the internet, attempting to tie him to Islamic extremists. Already fingers are again pointing at the Clinton campaign as yet another of Hillary's supporting bloggers was fired this week. Using antics like planting questions at town hall meetings, claiming her husband's previous Presidential policies as her own (despite not supporting them at the time), as well as mudslinging hyperbolic assumptions over the internet, Clinton seems to advocate the 'shoot first & apologize later' mentality, though we haven't seen much of the latter.
Though repeated attempts have been made to assert that Obama is or was a practicing Muslim at one time, the issue at hand shouldn't be whether or not Obama has any ties to a Muslim heritage (or any religion, for that matter); it should be whether or not he has the capability and vision to lead our nation and build ties with others. Certainly religion plays an important role in the practitioner's life, giving strength where needed and guiding some to lead a life of meaningful purpose, whatever that purpose may be. But, the media need not encourage nor discredit someone based on their individual, private beliefs; news should be reported, not created, and the people should make up their own minds, despite the documented corruption run amuck over the past years.
The average American, sadly, does not fully vet the candidates themselves, but rather leaves that task to the integrity of the media outlets to reveal (or expose) the weaknesses or strengths of each individual person running for the highest office in the land. This epidemic, as dangerous as it is, leaves only those “elites” with money or the power of influence to beg, buy or steal the support of the unwitting voter.
The best hope is that more people stand by their principles, study the candidates and their positions, and cast their votes with conviction, based on what values best represent them and the future of society as a whole.
Print
Email
