It has become apparent that in Northwest Illinois we are staunchly Republican on the local level. The overwhelming victories by Sen. Bivins, Congressman Sacia, and U.S. Representative Manzullo. The election in Stephenson County mirrored the national percentages in voting for Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. This is the first time that I am aware of that our county has voted in favor of a Democratic presidential nominee over a Republican.
The City of Freeport, which is extremely slow to change or to accept new concepts and ideas, voted overwhelmingly (65% to 35%) to stay with the Mayor-Council form of government instead of looking toward the future of our economic livelihood and strongly consider a City Manager-Mayor-Council form. We either embrace our candidates for their outgoing personality, even if the city is eroding around us, or kick them out if our taxes are raised to an uncomfortable level.
What does any of this portend for our local economy in a time when our major employers, such as MetLife, let more employees go, including ones that had been there for more than 40 years and had dedicated their lives to the company? We see the bright and shiny new retail stores like Wal-Mart, Menards, and the refurbished Farm and Fleet, but these are not "new" businesses to our area. These are expanded companies, who are now letting their new hires go as the economy continues to slide and the stores reach a point of balanced business (the initial traffic flow has leveled off).
We are landlocked in Freeport with no major expressways nearby (think Rochelle and I-88 and I-39) and no four-lane highway to our West. This has severely limited our ability to grow in population or in business. We are now at a 6.9% unemployment rate compared with 4.8% one year ago, as of September. Of course, this isn't helped by the 8.9% rate in Winnebago County, where many of our residents work. How many more unemployed do we have that are now on other forms of subsidized income who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits?
There are many aspects of our city and county that are in need of assistance, whether through the government or local business initiatives. There is definitely a need for the two to be working together for the area and not have people so consumed with personal approval ratings or image, but who get things done with the general good of the economy and standard of living not taking a backseat to the next election.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Thoughts on the Day After
Found this while looking through various blogs about the election. Thought it was an interesting post which highlights the symmetrical and cyclical nature of American politics:
Conservative blogger Rod Dreher notes:
1. The modern conservative movement began with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race. The modern conservative movement ends with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. John McCain -- who took Goldwater's Senate seat upon his retirement -- in the 2008 presidential race.
2. Modern liberalism began its implosion with riots in Chicago's Grant Park at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Tonight, modern liberalism is reborn at Chicago's Grant Park, where a black Chicago Democrat will celebrate winning the presidency.
Conservative blogger Rod Dreher notes:
1. The modern conservative movement began with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race. The modern conservative movement ends with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. John McCain -- who took Goldwater's Senate seat upon his retirement -- in the 2008 presidential race.
2. Modern liberalism began its implosion with riots in Chicago's Grant Park at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Tonight, modern liberalism is reborn at Chicago's Grant Park, where a black Chicago Democrat will celebrate winning the presidency.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Obama Wins Election
As the final days of the campaign ran its course, there was the distinct feeling that Senator Barack Obama of our state of Illinois would win the election. In another online discussion group, I predicted that Sen. Obama would win 338 Electoral College Votes. While I fully supported Senator John McCain for his abilities in National security issues and especially for his stance on the pro-life issue, I am an American and appreciate that the country of Lincoln fought for the rights of any American of the appropriate age to run for President. There is to be no encumbrance to race, color or religious affiliation when running for the highest office in the land.
I wish Senator Obama well. I do hope that he moves more toward the centrist, conservative demeanor that he displayed at Harvard (according to Professor Ogletree his former mentor at Harvard Law School). It came down to the primary reasons of the economy (doesn't it usually?) and the ability to link Senator McCain with the Bush presidency.
Now there is the hope that the Senate does not become a supermajority with 60 Democrats, or perhaps that would be a good thing, because then we can see if the Democrats can solve the nation's woes and not have partisanship to blame for any failures to "change" our country for the better.
I am guessing that no one will mispronounce his name like I predicted almost four years ago prior to President Bush's second inauguration in 2005, when Senator Kennedy called him Senator Osama.
We'll see if we start moving in a positive direction.
I wish Senator Obama well. I do hope that he moves more toward the centrist, conservative demeanor that he displayed at Harvard (according to Professor Ogletree his former mentor at Harvard Law School). It came down to the primary reasons of the economy (doesn't it usually?) and the ability to link Senator McCain with the Bush presidency.
Now there is the hope that the Senate does not become a supermajority with 60 Democrats, or perhaps that would be a good thing, because then we can see if the Democrats can solve the nation's woes and not have partisanship to blame for any failures to "change" our country for the better.
I am guessing that no one will mispronounce his name like I predicted almost four years ago prior to President Bush's second inauguration in 2005, when Senator Kennedy called him Senator Osama.
We'll see if we start moving in a positive direction.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Presidential Candidates' Health
Column first published in Village Voices, October 14, 2008
Fit for Office
By
Roland Tolliver
"John F. Kennedy has not, nor has he ever, had … Addison's disease." --Dr. Janet Travell, President Kennedy's Personal Physician
In this, the age of HIPPA laws and medical disclosure issues, Americans want to know about the health status of their elected officials, especially the President. This has now carried over, and with good reason, to the candidates who are running for President of the United States. The health of the candidates for Vice-President also presents intriguing questions, but not to the same extreme. The forthrightness of past nominees has been questionable at best, including several Presidents whose near-incapacitation or inability to lead were masked or hidden by their doctors and personal assistants.
The above example for then Senator Kennedy is one of the most blatant and glaring in regards to Presidential candidates. While JFK is often revered as one of our great Presidents, he most likely would have never been voted in if there had been full disclosure of his health problems. It has been revealed that he was thought to be addicted to painkillers because of chronic back pain. He had full-blown Addison's disease (a condition that affects the adrenal gland and requires cortisone to allow the body to function) since 1947, but that fact was hidden from the public. There were multiple other medical conditions that afflicted Senator Kennedy, but these were hidden from the public in his campaign's desire to project a youthful, energetic candidate to the country. The first televised debate in 1960 only accentuated that persona to the public and allowed JFK to become President.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was initially just as secretive, by minimizing a heart attack in 1955 and downplaying his gall bladder attacks. He did eventually seek counsel from President Eisenhower, who had had multiple medical problems during his two terms in office during the 1950's. He instructed President Johnson to let the American people know about his medical status. LBJ went so far as to reveal his "gall bladder surgery scar" during a press conference.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower not only suffered a heart attack in 1955 during his first term in office, but had severe Crohn's disease, which required surgery in 1956 and had a stroke in 1957, which left him with a slight speech impediment.
It has been well-documented that President Ronald Reagan developed Alzheimer's disease, which many people have determined probably manifested toward the end of his second term. It is also well-known that his successor, President George H. W. Bush, has Grave's disease, which affects the thyroid gland.
Throughout the history of our country, as well as country's around the world, the health of many nations' leaders has come into question at different times. Fidel Castro, Boris Yeltsin, and Kim Yong Il among others have been or were kept out of the public eye when seriously ill in order to "protect" them from those who had suspicions of their ability or inability to lead. While dictatorial countries and communist regimes often operate under a veil of secrecy, our own government has done this over the years when it has come to our own presidents' health concerns.
The questions concerning our current presidential candidates' health continue to be asked by journalists, physician panels, and the electorate. Is John McCain, who will be 72 on Inauguration Day, too old for the presidency? Does his history of hypertension (high blood pressure), high cholesterol, and previous bouts with melanomas lead one to believe that he may not survive even one term in office? Will people take into account that current actuarial tables (while only an indicator and obviously not a prognosticator of actual lifelines) indicate that he will most likely live at least another twelve years? Do voters look at the fact that his mother is still living vibrantly at age 96? Will we stop to consider that he has survived a Vietnamese prison camp and has now led a full life of service to his country? Of course, the job of President of the United States has taken a toll on the last two Presidents. Just look at photos of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush before and after taking office.
Most people look at the Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, and imagine that he is the picture of health. He is slim, plays pick-up basketball regularly, and is said to eat relatively healthy food choices with little or no excess fats or junk food. What is often overlooked is his addiction to nicotine and his frequent relapses in regards to the use of tobacco. There have been many people in their forties and fifties who appear healthy, that succumb to the effects of smoking, including heart attacks, cancer of the throat, mouth, and lungs among other types, as well as emphysema and related breathing disorders. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52.
There are many issues on which this presidential campaign will be decided. There are also many questions about a candidate's health that are legitimate. Few journalists will dig very deep into the 1,500 plus pages of medical information that Senator McCain released, just as few will go beyond the one page "I'm normal" news release that came from Senator Obama's campaign headquarters. If there are underlying medical conditions that truly affect one's ability to lead the country and make the critical decisions that are required on a daily basis, then these should be fully disclosed, because it is important when making the choice at the ballot box.
If the non-issue health concerns are blown out of proportion only for the chance to question one's ability to lead, then these need to be critically addressed by qualified individuals in order to substantiate the findings or to discredit them, whichever provides the true answer. We can no longer fall prey to the whims of a candidate's handlers, who in the past insulated the candidate and his medical conditions from the general public, and vote blindly. If it is of no consequence, then vote for the best man and/or woman. If it is, and we don't know until after the fact, then we better be sure that the Vice-President's health is in order.
Fit for Office
By
Roland Tolliver
"John F. Kennedy has not, nor has he ever, had … Addison's disease." --Dr. Janet Travell, President Kennedy's Personal Physician
In this, the age of HIPPA laws and medical disclosure issues, Americans want to know about the health status of their elected officials, especially the President. This has now carried over, and with good reason, to the candidates who are running for President of the United States. The health of the candidates for Vice-President also presents intriguing questions, but not to the same extreme. The forthrightness of past nominees has been questionable at best, including several Presidents whose near-incapacitation or inability to lead were masked or hidden by their doctors and personal assistants.
The above example for then Senator Kennedy is one of the most blatant and glaring in regards to Presidential candidates. While JFK is often revered as one of our great Presidents, he most likely would have never been voted in if there had been full disclosure of his health problems. It has been revealed that he was thought to be addicted to painkillers because of chronic back pain. He had full-blown Addison's disease (a condition that affects the adrenal gland and requires cortisone to allow the body to function) since 1947, but that fact was hidden from the public. There were multiple other medical conditions that afflicted Senator Kennedy, but these were hidden from the public in his campaign's desire to project a youthful, energetic candidate to the country. The first televised debate in 1960 only accentuated that persona to the public and allowed JFK to become President.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was initially just as secretive, by minimizing a heart attack in 1955 and downplaying his gall bladder attacks. He did eventually seek counsel from President Eisenhower, who had had multiple medical problems during his two terms in office during the 1950's. He instructed President Johnson to let the American people know about his medical status. LBJ went so far as to reveal his "gall bladder surgery scar" during a press conference.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower not only suffered a heart attack in 1955 during his first term in office, but had severe Crohn's disease, which required surgery in 1956 and had a stroke in 1957, which left him with a slight speech impediment.
It has been well-documented that President Ronald Reagan developed Alzheimer's disease, which many people have determined probably manifested toward the end of his second term. It is also well-known that his successor, President George H. W. Bush, has Grave's disease, which affects the thyroid gland.
Throughout the history of our country, as well as country's around the world, the health of many nations' leaders has come into question at different times. Fidel Castro, Boris Yeltsin, and Kim Yong Il among others have been or were kept out of the public eye when seriously ill in order to "protect" them from those who had suspicions of their ability or inability to lead. While dictatorial countries and communist regimes often operate under a veil of secrecy, our own government has done this over the years when it has come to our own presidents' health concerns.
The questions concerning our current presidential candidates' health continue to be asked by journalists, physician panels, and the electorate. Is John McCain, who will be 72 on Inauguration Day, too old for the presidency? Does his history of hypertension (high blood pressure), high cholesterol, and previous bouts with melanomas lead one to believe that he may not survive even one term in office? Will people take into account that current actuarial tables (while only an indicator and obviously not a prognosticator of actual lifelines) indicate that he will most likely live at least another twelve years? Do voters look at the fact that his mother is still living vibrantly at age 96? Will we stop to consider that he has survived a Vietnamese prison camp and has now led a full life of service to his country? Of course, the job of President of the United States has taken a toll on the last two Presidents. Just look at photos of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush before and after taking office.
Most people look at the Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, and imagine that he is the picture of health. He is slim, plays pick-up basketball regularly, and is said to eat relatively healthy food choices with little or no excess fats or junk food. What is often overlooked is his addiction to nicotine and his frequent relapses in regards to the use of tobacco. There have been many people in their forties and fifties who appear healthy, that succumb to the effects of smoking, including heart attacks, cancer of the throat, mouth, and lungs among other types, as well as emphysema and related breathing disorders. His mother died of cancer at the age of 52.
There are many issues on which this presidential campaign will be decided. There are also many questions about a candidate's health that are legitimate. Few journalists will dig very deep into the 1,500 plus pages of medical information that Senator McCain released, just as few will go beyond the one page "I'm normal" news release that came from Senator Obama's campaign headquarters. If there are underlying medical conditions that truly affect one's ability to lead the country and make the critical decisions that are required on a daily basis, then these should be fully disclosed, because it is important when making the choice at the ballot box.
If the non-issue health concerns are blown out of proportion only for the chance to question one's ability to lead, then these need to be critically addressed by qualified individuals in order to substantiate the findings or to discredit them, whichever provides the true answer. We can no longer fall prey to the whims of a candidate's handlers, who in the past insulated the candidate and his medical conditions from the general public, and vote blindly. If it is of no consequence, then vote for the best man and/or woman. If it is, and we don't know until after the fact, then we better be sure that the Vice-President's health is in order.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
We've Got Questions
The Following Column appeared in The Freeport Focus on September 24, 2008:
We've Got Questions … Do They Have Answers?
By
Roland Tolliver
"In many ways what they've done is created a world for real presidential debates in which the candidates have an opportunity, to a larger audience, not to engage each other, but to give another version of their stump speech." --John Wells
We'll take the opportunity today to play moderator for this week's debate between the presidential candidates for the two major political parties. Our condolences to the obscure Party candidates, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Tom Millican, and Chuck Baldwin who were not invited, but they invite you to read their position papers on the major issues at their respective web sites, if you can find them. So, let's present the questions and maybe someday we'll be able to hear the "real" answers.
We flipped a coin and Senator Obama called heads. Yes, heads it is and Senator Obama has chosen to receive … the first question.
Moderator: Senator Obama, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to sit here "thisclose" to you. I love your campaign and all that you stand for, but as a non-biased news anchor, I am compelled to ask you some tough questions. Our first question is, "What is it like meeting Oprah? I mean, OMG, she is the one we all strive to be like."
Senator Obama: Well, Mr. Moderator, it is truly an honor to be here and we represent change that you can believe in. I met Oprah at church with Reverend Wright where I never heard anything about hating America or subjected my family to any such vitriol. We would meet for coffee and cookies and talk about shopping at the local Jewel.
Moderator: Thank you, Senator, for your insightful and awe-inspiring answer. What is your favorite cookie, by the way?
Senator Obama: White chocolate with macadamia nuts or a good oatmeal raisin.
Moderator: Thank you for being here, Senator McCain. Let's start with a simple question. "What can you tell us about Charles Keating and the problems that bedeviled the savings and loan industry?"
Senator McCain: Charles Keating. Charles Keating! You ask him about Oprah and cookies and I get Charles Keating. Did you know that I spent five and a half years as a POW in Hanoi? Why didn't you ask him about the $126, 349 he received from Fannie Mae in the past four years? His staff has consulted with the deposed chairman of this pseudo government organization and you ask me about the savings and loan industry? I am the real change agent here.
Moderator: Senator McCain, please just answer the questions. This isn't Fox. Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews wrote the questions, so you know they are fair. Senator Obama, how did you and Michelle meet? You are such a lovely couple and your girls are just adorable.
Senator Obama: Thank you, sir. Michelle and I were working at a Chicago law firm and she was my advisor. We went to see Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" on our first date. I told her she was the 'right thing' for me. Now we're a happy family and this campaign is like our third child.
Moderator: That is so sweet, Senator. Senator McCain, how do you account for not knowing how many houses you have?
Senator McCain: How did he meet Michelle? Did you know that they were married by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who the Senator no longer acknowledges? How many houses do I have? Ask my esteemed colleague how he managed to have real estate shenanigans with Mr. Tony Rezko, who is now in jail awaiting trial for illegal campaign fundraising activities. How much money did he raise for the Senator?
Moderator: Senator McCain, you are not sticking with the topics, you have one more chance. Senator Obama, may I call you Barack?
Senator Obama: Yes, sir, you may.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Presiden…, I mean, Barack. My final question of the night for you is, "If you could meet anyone in the world, who would it be?"
Senator Obama: As I intuited in my book, "Dreams Of My Father", a New York Times bestseller, by the way, I would have liked to have gone to Kenya to meet my father, whom I never really knew. I was raised by my loving grandparents in Kansas and I'm just a small town kid at heart. Otherwise, I'd like to meet Osama bin Laden and say, 'shame on you' for what you did to this country and to tell him that he ruined my name, because people keep confusing his and mine, like Senator Kennedy when he introduced me to the Senate.
Moderator: Yes, a good tongue lashing ought to teach that bin Laden character that we mean business! Mister, I mean, Senator McCain, you have supported the war in Iraq since the beginning, while Senator Obama was against it, even though he wasn't actually in the Senate when it started. How do you justify America not just packing it up and calling it a day?
Senator McCain: He wants bin Laden to apologize? Get real, will you? Just like his friend William Ayers apologized? Ha! What kind of debate is this, anyways? You know darn well that I'll follow that terrorist to the gates of hell. I may be old enough to be my opponent's father, but I'm tougher than nails. I actually had to eat nails once when I was in Viet Nam. I needed the iron from the rust on them.
Moderator: That's enough, Senator McCain. I am going to turn this one over now to the pundits who will tell Americans what they think and how the people should think. They all believe that the typical American voter doesn't know how to think for themselves and they have a lot of airtime to fill. Bye, Barack. Are we still on for coffee tomorrow morning? Give my best to Michelle and the girls.
Heard off camera: Hey, you're still on the air! They'll think that we're supporting one candidate over the other. Turn off your mike, will ya?!
We've Got Questions … Do They Have Answers?
By
Roland Tolliver
"In many ways what they've done is created a world for real presidential debates in which the candidates have an opportunity, to a larger audience, not to engage each other, but to give another version of their stump speech." --John Wells
We'll take the opportunity today to play moderator for this week's debate between the presidential candidates for the two major political parties. Our condolences to the obscure Party candidates, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Tom Millican, and Chuck Baldwin who were not invited, but they invite you to read their position papers on the major issues at their respective web sites, if you can find them. So, let's present the questions and maybe someday we'll be able to hear the "real" answers.
We flipped a coin and Senator Obama called heads. Yes, heads it is and Senator Obama has chosen to receive … the first question.
Moderator: Senator Obama, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to sit here "thisclose" to you. I love your campaign and all that you stand for, but as a non-biased news anchor, I am compelled to ask you some tough questions. Our first question is, "What is it like meeting Oprah? I mean, OMG, she is the one we all strive to be like."
Senator Obama: Well, Mr. Moderator, it is truly an honor to be here and we represent change that you can believe in. I met Oprah at church with Reverend Wright where I never heard anything about hating America or subjected my family to any such vitriol. We would meet for coffee and cookies and talk about shopping at the local Jewel.
Moderator: Thank you, Senator, for your insightful and awe-inspiring answer. What is your favorite cookie, by the way?
Senator Obama: White chocolate with macadamia nuts or a good oatmeal raisin.
Moderator: Thank you for being here, Senator McCain. Let's start with a simple question. "What can you tell us about Charles Keating and the problems that bedeviled the savings and loan industry?"
Senator McCain: Charles Keating. Charles Keating! You ask him about Oprah and cookies and I get Charles Keating. Did you know that I spent five and a half years as a POW in Hanoi? Why didn't you ask him about the $126, 349 he received from Fannie Mae in the past four years? His staff has consulted with the deposed chairman of this pseudo government organization and you ask me about the savings and loan industry? I am the real change agent here.
Moderator: Senator McCain, please just answer the questions. This isn't Fox. Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews wrote the questions, so you know they are fair. Senator Obama, how did you and Michelle meet? You are such a lovely couple and your girls are just adorable.
Senator Obama: Thank you, sir. Michelle and I were working at a Chicago law firm and she was my advisor. We went to see Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" on our first date. I told her she was the 'right thing' for me. Now we're a happy family and this campaign is like our third child.
Moderator: That is so sweet, Senator. Senator McCain, how do you account for not knowing how many houses you have?
Senator McCain: How did he meet Michelle? Did you know that they were married by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who the Senator no longer acknowledges? How many houses do I have? Ask my esteemed colleague how he managed to have real estate shenanigans with Mr. Tony Rezko, who is now in jail awaiting trial for illegal campaign fundraising activities. How much money did he raise for the Senator?
Moderator: Senator McCain, you are not sticking with the topics, you have one more chance. Senator Obama, may I call you Barack?
Senator Obama: Yes, sir, you may.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Presiden…, I mean, Barack. My final question of the night for you is, "If you could meet anyone in the world, who would it be?"
Senator Obama: As I intuited in my book, "Dreams Of My Father", a New York Times bestseller, by the way, I would have liked to have gone to Kenya to meet my father, whom I never really knew. I was raised by my loving grandparents in Kansas and I'm just a small town kid at heart. Otherwise, I'd like to meet Osama bin Laden and say, 'shame on you' for what you did to this country and to tell him that he ruined my name, because people keep confusing his and mine, like Senator Kennedy when he introduced me to the Senate.
Moderator: Yes, a good tongue lashing ought to teach that bin Laden character that we mean business! Mister, I mean, Senator McCain, you have supported the war in Iraq since the beginning, while Senator Obama was against it, even though he wasn't actually in the Senate when it started. How do you justify America not just packing it up and calling it a day?
Senator McCain: He wants bin Laden to apologize? Get real, will you? Just like his friend William Ayers apologized? Ha! What kind of debate is this, anyways? You know darn well that I'll follow that terrorist to the gates of hell. I may be old enough to be my opponent's father, but I'm tougher than nails. I actually had to eat nails once when I was in Viet Nam. I needed the iron from the rust on them.
Moderator: That's enough, Senator McCain. I am going to turn this one over now to the pundits who will tell Americans what they think and how the people should think. They all believe that the typical American voter doesn't know how to think for themselves and they have a lot of airtime to fill. Bye, Barack. Are we still on for coffee tomorrow morning? Give my best to Michelle and the girls.
Heard off camera: Hey, you're still on the air! They'll think that we're supporting one candidate over the other. Turn off your mike, will ya?!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
House Call for the Spin Doctor
The following column appeared in The Freeport Focus on September 18, 2008.
House Call for the Spin Doctor
By
Roland Tolliver
“The political spin in Washington is revolting, just revolting. It’s a callous political game.”
--Rob Bishop
Two weeks ago I would have given odds that Senator Barack Obama would be the winner of the general presidential election the first Tuesday of November. A few years ago I coined a term, “politainment”, in which the new word was defined as being the melding of politics and entertainment. It has become ubiquitous in our society that the issues are only marginally brought forth, but the perception of a candidate’s personality is front and center when campaigning. This is primarily related to national politics where the “big money” is spent on television advertising and the faces of the candidates’ are ever-present.
When one goes back to 1960 for our general presidential elections there is a distinct pattern of the “better looking” candidate winning the elections. For those of you who recall the first presidential debates in 1960, those who were listening on the radio were sure that Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had won with more salient points, but as we know Senator John F. Kennedy won the general election. Many ceded that his election victory was sealed during that debate, which was also televised. He was photogenic, eloquent with his speech, and was not sweating like a pig (one without lipstick) during the debate. Nixon on the other hand lacked Kennedy’s charm and was sweating like a pig (his makeup was probably running, too). This was the start of the “politainment” period in American politics.
Each subsequent election has seen similar national predilection for the candidate that was perceived to have more camera appeal, though one could argue that Nixon vs. Humphrey or Nixon vs. McGovern was a “visual” wash and it could also account for the “hanging chad” closeness of the Bush vs. Gore election. One could argue those, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the more photogenic candidates are typically the general election winners for president.
That leads us to this year. Here we have Senator Barack Obama, the thin, handsome, gifted speaker of a candidate, who came out like gangbusters during the primaries, only to almost lose what seemed like an insurmountable lead, but hung on for his party’s nomination. On the other side of the coin, we have the more “seasoned” candidate, Senator John McCain, who seems stauncher, less talented at conveying his message from a podium, and a trifle rougher around the edges.
America is always on the lookout for something new and exciting to come along. We give our television shows a few weeks to “wow” us and if it doesn’t grab enough ratings fast enough, the shows are yanked off of the air. We tend to be the same way about our politicians running for national office. We give them the opportunity to smooth talk us into believing that they are all about change or hope or reform or whatever buzz word is commissioned by the campaign managers and people pulling the candidates’ strings and then we try to decide who we like the best, or who we like the least.
This campaign season, however, has seen a wrench thrown into the boiler. While the one candidate has the GQ looks and suave demeanor going for him, he also has a long-winded, perennial politician without a hint of “change” in his profile as a running mate. The other candidate, who has served his country for fifty-some years, is trying to project an image of change, which alone he could not achieve. He has, however, changed the perspective of the race by asking a fresh new face to the national scene to be his running mate. Where one candidate says he is about change and didn’t back it up when he had a chance to make a distinction with a running mate, instead of highlighting his own shortcomings with his choice, the other made it clear that it is he who will be running the country if he wins, and that the vice-presidential nominee is there to support his leadership.
The fact that she is just as photogenic, if not more so, than the Democratic presidential nominee, is where the wrench comes in. America has not typically had an election season where a presidential candidate has spent so much time and energy in comparing himself to the vice-presidential candidate for the other party. Where experience is lacking, quite frankly in all of the candidates, the quality of leadership should fill in that void. So, the question becomes not who has the experience to lead, but who has the ability to lead, to make the tough decisions, and with whom to consult in order to make those decisions.
The next fifty days or so will be a blur to most of us. We will see political attack ads. We will hear enough spin to make our heads spin and we will in typical fashion most often hear only what we want to hear. The majority of Americans have already decided who they will vote for. The messages that will be sent over the next weeks will be geared at swaying those that are sitting on the proverbial fence. Many will vacillate depending on their personal stance on certain issues and how they perceive that the candidates match up with their positions. Others will see who appears to show the qualities they deem necessary for the leader of our country.
What many will not do, will be to see beyond the political spin, to dig deeper into a candidate’s qualifications and to make an informed decision. Many will look at the candidates’ appearances on the television screen, listen to the pundits, and vote based on the presentation of the packaging of the candidates. The polls will be like watching to see how well a movie is doing at the box office or a television show in the ratings. Many will jump on a bandwagon depending on any given day’s results. This is the type of political entertainment that has been perpetuated since 1960 and now has grown with the advent of 24/7 news coverage into the “politainment” monster that everyone knows, but few want to recognize.
Politics shouldn’t be about which candidate comes across best on television. It should be about who is best suited to lead our country. Alas, that seems to be a forgotten factor.
House Call for the Spin Doctor
By
Roland Tolliver
“The political spin in Washington is revolting, just revolting. It’s a callous political game.”
--Rob Bishop
Two weeks ago I would have given odds that Senator Barack Obama would be the winner of the general presidential election the first Tuesday of November. A few years ago I coined a term, “politainment”, in which the new word was defined as being the melding of politics and entertainment. It has become ubiquitous in our society that the issues are only marginally brought forth, but the perception of a candidate’s personality is front and center when campaigning. This is primarily related to national politics where the “big money” is spent on television advertising and the faces of the candidates’ are ever-present.
When one goes back to 1960 for our general presidential elections there is a distinct pattern of the “better looking” candidate winning the elections. For those of you who recall the first presidential debates in 1960, those who were listening on the radio were sure that Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had won with more salient points, but as we know Senator John F. Kennedy won the general election. Many ceded that his election victory was sealed during that debate, which was also televised. He was photogenic, eloquent with his speech, and was not sweating like a pig (one without lipstick) during the debate. Nixon on the other hand lacked Kennedy’s charm and was sweating like a pig (his makeup was probably running, too). This was the start of the “politainment” period in American politics.
Each subsequent election has seen similar national predilection for the candidate that was perceived to have more camera appeal, though one could argue that Nixon vs. Humphrey or Nixon vs. McGovern was a “visual” wash and it could also account for the “hanging chad” closeness of the Bush vs. Gore election. One could argue those, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the more photogenic candidates are typically the general election winners for president.
That leads us to this year. Here we have Senator Barack Obama, the thin, handsome, gifted speaker of a candidate, who came out like gangbusters during the primaries, only to almost lose what seemed like an insurmountable lead, but hung on for his party’s nomination. On the other side of the coin, we have the more “seasoned” candidate, Senator John McCain, who seems stauncher, less talented at conveying his message from a podium, and a trifle rougher around the edges.
America is always on the lookout for something new and exciting to come along. We give our television shows a few weeks to “wow” us and if it doesn’t grab enough ratings fast enough, the shows are yanked off of the air. We tend to be the same way about our politicians running for national office. We give them the opportunity to smooth talk us into believing that they are all about change or hope or reform or whatever buzz word is commissioned by the campaign managers and people pulling the candidates’ strings and then we try to decide who we like the best, or who we like the least.
This campaign season, however, has seen a wrench thrown into the boiler. While the one candidate has the GQ looks and suave demeanor going for him, he also has a long-winded, perennial politician without a hint of “change” in his profile as a running mate. The other candidate, who has served his country for fifty-some years, is trying to project an image of change, which alone he could not achieve. He has, however, changed the perspective of the race by asking a fresh new face to the national scene to be his running mate. Where one candidate says he is about change and didn’t back it up when he had a chance to make a distinction with a running mate, instead of highlighting his own shortcomings with his choice, the other made it clear that it is he who will be running the country if he wins, and that the vice-presidential nominee is there to support his leadership.
The fact that she is just as photogenic, if not more so, than the Democratic presidential nominee, is where the wrench comes in. America has not typically had an election season where a presidential candidate has spent so much time and energy in comparing himself to the vice-presidential candidate for the other party. Where experience is lacking, quite frankly in all of the candidates, the quality of leadership should fill in that void. So, the question becomes not who has the experience to lead, but who has the ability to lead, to make the tough decisions, and with whom to consult in order to make those decisions.
The next fifty days or so will be a blur to most of us. We will see political attack ads. We will hear enough spin to make our heads spin and we will in typical fashion most often hear only what we want to hear. The majority of Americans have already decided who they will vote for. The messages that will be sent over the next weeks will be geared at swaying those that are sitting on the proverbial fence. Many will vacillate depending on their personal stance on certain issues and how they perceive that the candidates match up with their positions. Others will see who appears to show the qualities they deem necessary for the leader of our country.
What many will not do, will be to see beyond the political spin, to dig deeper into a candidate’s qualifications and to make an informed decision. Many will look at the candidates’ appearances on the television screen, listen to the pundits, and vote based on the presentation of the packaging of the candidates. The polls will be like watching to see how well a movie is doing at the box office or a television show in the ratings. Many will jump on a bandwagon depending on any given day’s results. This is the type of political entertainment that has been perpetuated since 1960 and now has grown with the advent of 24/7 news coverage into the “politainment” monster that everyone knows, but few want to recognize.
Politics shouldn’t be about which candidate comes across best on television. It should be about who is best suited to lead our country. Alas, that seems to be a forgotten factor.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Quiet Morning Sky
I lay in bed yesterday morning and heard the planes flying overhead. There is a distinct pattern of flight from points west to O'Hare Airport that goes directly over Freeport around 6:00 a.m.. I could set my alarm to the early morning drone of the jets. Yesterday marked the seventh anniversary of the day the jets quit flying for several ominously eerie days. The nation was at a standstill while the impact of the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 were felt throughout our country and the world. It was the day the skies stood still.
All of the articles about "Where were you?" have been written to commemorate the date. The politicians put away their animosities for a one day truce. The memorials were held and the names of the victims were read and the bells tolled for those who gave their lives that day. Taps were played from the roof of the Pentagon and the sad refrains from the bagpipes echoed through the courtyard.
Local ceremonies were held throughout the country and law enforcement officers and fire department personnel were asked for their views on the tragedy and how it has affected our nation over the past seven years. Schools held moments of silence or stood at attention for "Taps" or the national anthem. Some said prayers for the victims and their families. Others went about their day, as if it were just another day.
I looked at the sky and wondered how something like that could happen and could it or would it happen again? Are there enough safety precautions now at our nation's airports, rail stations, and bus terminals? How much difference does it make if we take our shoes off or are strip-searched? Do we feel safer for ourselves and for our children? How much lip service has been given and how much actual action to ensure our country's protection has been taken?
There are plenty of reasons to question the war in Iraq and how it actually has affected the fact that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. There were legitimate reasons to go to Afghanistan and yet, Osama Bin Laden has still not been located. We've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq than died on 9/11 and we wonder to what end.
We are coming to an election and the "change" that is being touted is not really about true change in the way things are done, but in a change of the face of leadership. Will it matter much whether it is McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden if there is no change in the Congress? Once either one gets into office, the first term is about not screwing up too badly in the first two years, so that the next two years can be spent trying to stay in office with the next election.
Whether lipstick on a pig is an issue or who is the real agent of change really matters are left to public opinion, but it is really about having a vision for our country and the ability to convey that message to the citizens who are the ones whose lives are affected. Take away the TelePrompters and you still have human beings with doubts, human faults, and an occasional idea that takes us beyond the rhetoric and into a real sense of desire to accomplish something. Bring it to the level of everyday citizens and they might even find that their message resonates into community action.
We remember. We live. We go on. We move on. And in another year, we'll remember again. We should remember each and every day, though, about the days the skies stood still and our lives were changed. Forever.
All of the articles about "Where were you?" have been written to commemorate the date. The politicians put away their animosities for a one day truce. The memorials were held and the names of the victims were read and the bells tolled for those who gave their lives that day. Taps were played from the roof of the Pentagon and the sad refrains from the bagpipes echoed through the courtyard.
Local ceremonies were held throughout the country and law enforcement officers and fire department personnel were asked for their views on the tragedy and how it has affected our nation over the past seven years. Schools held moments of silence or stood at attention for "Taps" or the national anthem. Some said prayers for the victims and their families. Others went about their day, as if it were just another day.
I looked at the sky and wondered how something like that could happen and could it or would it happen again? Are there enough safety precautions now at our nation's airports, rail stations, and bus terminals? How much difference does it make if we take our shoes off or are strip-searched? Do we feel safer for ourselves and for our children? How much lip service has been given and how much actual action to ensure our country's protection has been taken?
There are plenty of reasons to question the war in Iraq and how it actually has affected the fact that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. There were legitimate reasons to go to Afghanistan and yet, Osama Bin Laden has still not been located. We've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq than died on 9/11 and we wonder to what end.
We are coming to an election and the "change" that is being touted is not really about true change in the way things are done, but in a change of the face of leadership. Will it matter much whether it is McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden if there is no change in the Congress? Once either one gets into office, the first term is about not screwing up too badly in the first two years, so that the next two years can be spent trying to stay in office with the next election.
Whether lipstick on a pig is an issue or who is the real agent of change really matters are left to public opinion, but it is really about having a vision for our country and the ability to convey that message to the citizens who are the ones whose lives are affected. Take away the TelePrompters and you still have human beings with doubts, human faults, and an occasional idea that takes us beyond the rhetoric and into a real sense of desire to accomplish something. Bring it to the level of everyday citizens and they might even find that their message resonates into community action.
We remember. We live. We go on. We move on. And in another year, we'll remember again. We should remember each and every day, though, about the days the skies stood still and our lives were changed. Forever.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Watching the DNC
Watching the DNC
Or How to OD on the Democratic National Commercial
By
Roland Tolliver
“Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much.” --Every Speaker featured on Primetime Television’s version of the long infomercial known as the DNC.
We put our friend and pundit in front of C-Span for four straight days to get his interpretation of the Democratic National Convention this past week. Our man of the hour, the pugnacious prognosticator of the press, Al Bebach, spent considerable time not only deciphering the double-speak and diatribe (don’t worry, in all fairness, he’ll report on the Republican National Commercial, er, Convention, if it is held next week), but reading “between the lines” or tells you what was not said, or at least omitted from the highlight reels.
AB: Should I start with the big speech?
Me: You mean, Senator Obama’s?
AB: No, you silly man. I meant the one by the woman in the tangerine travelling pant suit.
Me: Sure. Go ahead. What did she say?
AB: It wasn’t what she said. It was what she left out. “I’m here tonight as a proud mother, a proud Democrat … as a proud senator from New York … a proud American … and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”
Me: So. What’s the problem?
AB: Don’t you think it was a little, well, rude of her not to mention being a proud wife? Bill is sitting there mouthing his little, “I love yous” and she doesn’t even acknowledge him.
Me: Maybe she was getting back at him for that Monica Lewinsky thing in the White House?
AB: Perhaps, but that had to be embarrassing for the former President. Then she brings up her support of Senator John McCain when she said, “Know the way. Know the how. Know McCain!” and then the whole crowd started shouting, “Know McCain!” I mean, wasn’t she at the DNC?
Me: I think she said, “No way. No how. No McCain.”
AB: That’s what you think. I had a chance to see a draft of the speech and I think she was subliminally trying to support McCain. She plans on taking her 18 million voters with her and going home to … now where did she say she’s from? New York, Illinois, Arkansas, Washington, D.C.?
Me: What else do you have?
AB: My favorite line was about the most important job being taking care of our families and to “help every child live up to his or her God-given potential … ”
Me: That sounds like a good idea to me.
AB: The most important line must have been cut from the telecast, though.
Me: And that was …?
AB: … except the ones that we never want to give the chance to be born … Every human life deserves a chance to reach his or her potential, but there is no chance if there is no birth. What is God-given about that?
Me: I see your point. How about any of the others? What about Joe Biden?
AB: Let’s see. “Barack and I took very different journeys to this very destination, but we share a common story …” What he left out was that he’s shared a common story with others before.
Me: What do you mean?
AB: Don’t you recall how he used the story of British Labor Party Leader, Neil Kinnock, even plagiarizing his words as his own during a speech at the Iowa State Fair during the 1988 presidential campaign? He did the same thing when he was in college, but it was only “stressless scholarship” then, whatever that means?!
Me: So, he’s told a few lies. That shouldn’t disqualify him as a politician.
AB: Touché, sir. Touché! Then there was his line “My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families.” He, like Hillary, keeps leaving out the caveat, except the family members that don’t get a chance to live in the first place.
Me: I’m getting the impression that you are pro-life, Mr. Bebach.
AB: Well, Mr. Biden and the rest of the speakers are definitely on the opposite side of the fence on that subject.
Me: That is a major part of the Democratic platform. It does seem to go against the grain of the faith that Mr. Biden was alluding to, doesn’t it? How about Bill Clinton’s speech? Any insights?
AB: I think he said it all pretty much in his second sentence, “Now, in the end, my candidate didn’t win.”
Me: I didn’t think it was the end, but isn’t it the beginning of the final stage of this race?
AB: Yeah, of course. What was in his mind’s teleprompter went something like, ‘Now I don’t get to go back to the White House. Man, I had some fun there, but if Obama doesn’t win the general election, then McCain will be really old, and Hillary can run again and … why did I get the primary process changed … why did we let Barack Obama speak at the DNC four years ago? Why? Why? Why? … and …’
Me: And, what?
AB: I don’t know. He went on so long that I fell asleep and when I woke up there was a sustained applause when I think he said something about concluding his speech.
Me: And then there was the spectacle of the final night and the historic nomination of this country’s first African-American for a major party candidate for President.
AB: Yes, there was. And it was a truly momentous occasion in our country’s history. But then he, like Hillary, managed to commend a variety of occupations, but with a plan for national health care, both failed to mention the people who will be providing this health care.
Me: The clinics at Wal Marts and Walgreens?
AB: No, though it may come to that. I’m talking about doctors. I guess they don’t fall into the category of “ordinary men and women” who “found the courage to keep it (the American dream) alive.”
Me: I suppose it is just reward enough to keep people alive.
AB: Yeah, I’m sure that’ll fit nicely on a placard. I have to admit that Senator Obama has a way with words, but he sure uses the words “I will” a lot. He seems to forget about a Congress that has to be dealt with, though he’s only actually spent about 150 days there since he was elected as an Illinois state senator, and there is the issue of actually winning the election first. Then he keeps referring to shows like “Eight is Enough.” I wonder if Dick Van Patten will have a place in Obama’s cabinet?
Me: I’m exhausted just listening to you. How did you stay awake to see all of those speeches?
AB: It was the politicians and speakers abilities to keep offering everyone in America so much hype!
Me: I think they were saying, “hope.”
AB: You don’t know much about politics, do you?
Dr. Roland Tolliver is a contributing writer for the Freeport Focus.
Or How to OD on the Democratic National Commercial
By
Roland Tolliver
“Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much.” --Every Speaker featured on Primetime Television’s version of the long infomercial known as the DNC.
We put our friend and pundit in front of C-Span for four straight days to get his interpretation of the Democratic National Convention this past week. Our man of the hour, the pugnacious prognosticator of the press, Al Bebach, spent considerable time not only deciphering the double-speak and diatribe (don’t worry, in all fairness, he’ll report on the Republican National Commercial, er, Convention, if it is held next week), but reading “between the lines” or tells you what was not said, or at least omitted from the highlight reels.
AB: Should I start with the big speech?
Me: You mean, Senator Obama’s?
AB: No, you silly man. I meant the one by the woman in the tangerine travelling pant suit.
Me: Sure. Go ahead. What did she say?
AB: It wasn’t what she said. It was what she left out. “I’m here tonight as a proud mother, a proud Democrat … as a proud senator from New York … a proud American … and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”
Me: So. What’s the problem?
AB: Don’t you think it was a little, well, rude of her not to mention being a proud wife? Bill is sitting there mouthing his little, “I love yous” and she doesn’t even acknowledge him.
Me: Maybe she was getting back at him for that Monica Lewinsky thing in the White House?
AB: Perhaps, but that had to be embarrassing for the former President. Then she brings up her support of Senator John McCain when she said, “Know the way. Know the how. Know McCain!” and then the whole crowd started shouting, “Know McCain!” I mean, wasn’t she at the DNC?
Me: I think she said, “No way. No how. No McCain.”
AB: That’s what you think. I had a chance to see a draft of the speech and I think she was subliminally trying to support McCain. She plans on taking her 18 million voters with her and going home to … now where did she say she’s from? New York, Illinois, Arkansas, Washington, D.C.?
Me: What else do you have?
AB: My favorite line was about the most important job being taking care of our families and to “help every child live up to his or her God-given potential … ”
Me: That sounds like a good idea to me.
AB: The most important line must have been cut from the telecast, though.
Me: And that was …?
AB: … except the ones that we never want to give the chance to be born … Every human life deserves a chance to reach his or her potential, but there is no chance if there is no birth. What is God-given about that?
Me: I see your point. How about any of the others? What about Joe Biden?
AB: Let’s see. “Barack and I took very different journeys to this very destination, but we share a common story …” What he left out was that he’s shared a common story with others before.
Me: What do you mean?
AB: Don’t you recall how he used the story of British Labor Party Leader, Neil Kinnock, even plagiarizing his words as his own during a speech at the Iowa State Fair during the 1988 presidential campaign? He did the same thing when he was in college, but it was only “stressless scholarship” then, whatever that means?!
Me: So, he’s told a few lies. That shouldn’t disqualify him as a politician.
AB: Touché, sir. Touché! Then there was his line “My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families.” He, like Hillary, keeps leaving out the caveat, except the family members that don’t get a chance to live in the first place.
Me: I’m getting the impression that you are pro-life, Mr. Bebach.
AB: Well, Mr. Biden and the rest of the speakers are definitely on the opposite side of the fence on that subject.
Me: That is a major part of the Democratic platform. It does seem to go against the grain of the faith that Mr. Biden was alluding to, doesn’t it? How about Bill Clinton’s speech? Any insights?
AB: I think he said it all pretty much in his second sentence, “Now, in the end, my candidate didn’t win.”
Me: I didn’t think it was the end, but isn’t it the beginning of the final stage of this race?
AB: Yeah, of course. What was in his mind’s teleprompter went something like, ‘Now I don’t get to go back to the White House. Man, I had some fun there, but if Obama doesn’t win the general election, then McCain will be really old, and Hillary can run again and … why did I get the primary process changed … why did we let Barack Obama speak at the DNC four years ago? Why? Why? Why? … and …’
Me: And, what?
AB: I don’t know. He went on so long that I fell asleep and when I woke up there was a sustained applause when I think he said something about concluding his speech.
Me: And then there was the spectacle of the final night and the historic nomination of this country’s first African-American for a major party candidate for President.
AB: Yes, there was. And it was a truly momentous occasion in our country’s history. But then he, like Hillary, managed to commend a variety of occupations, but with a plan for national health care, both failed to mention the people who will be providing this health care.
Me: The clinics at Wal Marts and Walgreens?
AB: No, though it may come to that. I’m talking about doctors. I guess they don’t fall into the category of “ordinary men and women” who “found the courage to keep it (the American dream) alive.”
Me: I suppose it is just reward enough to keep people alive.
AB: Yeah, I’m sure that’ll fit nicely on a placard. I have to admit that Senator Obama has a way with words, but he sure uses the words “I will” a lot. He seems to forget about a Congress that has to be dealt with, though he’s only actually spent about 150 days there since he was elected as an Illinois state senator, and there is the issue of actually winning the election first. Then he keeps referring to shows like “Eight is Enough.” I wonder if Dick Van Patten will have a place in Obama’s cabinet?
Me: I’m exhausted just listening to you. How did you stay awake to see all of those speeches?
AB: It was the politicians and speakers abilities to keep offering everyone in America so much hype!
Me: I think they were saying, “hope.”
AB: You don’t know much about politics, do you?
Dr. Roland Tolliver is a contributing writer for the Freeport Focus.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Guitar Hero or Rock Star: The Candidates' Version
The great debate is on. I was no where near being in the money in my GOP vice-presidential nominees. I, along with millions of other Americans, said, "Who?" when her name was being bantered about prior to the official announcement. Then I heard her speak at the nomination announcement and along with millions more, said, "Wow!" I really don't know much about her policies besides what has been written by the medial or has been presented by some of the "talking heads" but I couldn't help but be impressed by the strength of her speech. I know that a speech does not make a candidate, but no one can deny that eloquence of speech has not helped Obama. There is always more to a candidate than their comfort behind a microphone or in front of an audience. Of course, there is often less than meet's the eye as well once the teleprompter is no longer on.
There are those that can make a book come alive with the spoken word, but who cannot utter an intelligent thought on their own. There are others that are better when thinking on their feet or persuading people to believe in them or their ideals. Much in this way the two party's tickets are much alike, though in reverse order. Senator Obama's speaking ability is a given, when he is reading from a prepared text, so far, Governor Palin has proven just as adept in this format. If you've ever had the chance to see John McCain in an informal setting, he can be charming and disarmingly humorous and a quick thinker. Joe Biden, while long-winded and often evasive with his rhetoric, nonetheless, does better in a debate-style setting, than in front of a group of people. Witness the dryness of McCain's and Biden's speeches at the RNC and DNC respectively. Palin and Obama each drew around 40 million viewers for their speeches and clearly stirred up their respective audiences and core constituents.
How will all of this play out on the national stage? What will the debates prove? None of the candidates have been specific about policies. None of them have done much more than tout promises that will be all but impossible to implement or to pay for. None of them have the ability to circumvent a congress that is hellbent on maintaining their levels of power at whatever cost to the American public and Jill or John Q. Taxpayer.
All of the "I wills" in the world do not translate into effective action. None of the "crossing the aisles" will amount to anything if the other party is not willing to sacrifice or commit themselves to a global vision of a nation in need of healing. The infomecials known as the conventions are good show, but lacking in substance. Gentlemen and lady, state your positions!
There are those that can make a book come alive with the spoken word, but who cannot utter an intelligent thought on their own. There are others that are better when thinking on their feet or persuading people to believe in them or their ideals. Much in this way the two party's tickets are much alike, though in reverse order. Senator Obama's speaking ability is a given, when he is reading from a prepared text, so far, Governor Palin has proven just as adept in this format. If you've ever had the chance to see John McCain in an informal setting, he can be charming and disarmingly humorous and a quick thinker. Joe Biden, while long-winded and often evasive with his rhetoric, nonetheless, does better in a debate-style setting, than in front of a group of people. Witness the dryness of McCain's and Biden's speeches at the RNC and DNC respectively. Palin and Obama each drew around 40 million viewers for their speeches and clearly stirred up their respective audiences and core constituents.
How will all of this play out on the national stage? What will the debates prove? None of the candidates have been specific about policies. None of them have done much more than tout promises that will be all but impossible to implement or to pay for. None of them have the ability to circumvent a congress that is hellbent on maintaining their levels of power at whatever cost to the American public and Jill or John Q. Taxpayer.
All of the "I wills" in the world do not translate into effective action. None of the "crossing the aisles" will amount to anything if the other party is not willing to sacrifice or commit themselves to a global vision of a nation in need of healing. The infomecials known as the conventions are good show, but lacking in substance. Gentlemen and lady, state your positions!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)