Tomorrow night at 9:00 pm (ET) is the first presidential debate, moderated by Lester Holt. I seldom discuss such things because many people hold so firmly onto their beliefs that they can’t have a healthy dialogue with you. Many try harder to change your opinion than they do listening to or hearing what your opinion is.
These ads I have been watching are over the top and are sickening, as they always are. If your best presentation is to attack the opponent rather than tell me your own worth, then it’s a very sad state. That’s exactly what these ads are mostly doing: launching attacks at one another. If I happen to have missed any past or if I should miss a future debate, I can’t tell much about candidates’ position on things from seeing these TV ads or hearing the ones on the radio. All they do is tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the other person. Just to confirm the candidates themselves sponsored the ads and were not published by a public interest group or lobbyist, there is always the final statement (or sometimes it is presented at the beginning of the ad), “I’m ABC Candidate, and I approved this message.” I always say to myself, I wouldn’t brag about that. One ad had me screaming at the television. One candidate said in the ad, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.” I thought, “If you do, then why don’t you tell the generals where the ISIS leadership is located so they can eradicate them.”
Anyhow, I view the ads as a pissing contest; that is exactly what the debates end up becoming too, for they seldom have a good, firm moderator to control the stage and be a solid parliamentarian like they’re supposed to be. My blog post titled, It’s Just Another Pissing Match, highlighted this point of mine. As I said earlier, tonight’s debate is moderated by Lester Holt. I believe him to be a good choice.
I think it is for this reason – and many more reasons too – that people have become fed up with politics. If “Candidate A” attacks “Candidate B,” does it make “Candidate B” look stronger if he doesn’t attack back, but rather, talks positively about his own campaign and what he would bring to the office if elected? Or does “Candidate B” seem weak if he doesn’t act as vile as his opponent? I think that both candidates always think they have to as vile as the other. That’s the way it’s been for years. Though I’m speaking specifically about the current, pending presidential election, I’ve seen the same thing happen for other elections too at all levels of federal, state, and local elections.
I guess I’m too much of an idealist. I’d like to see someone be the bigger person and not stoop to all the name calling and attacking. All may be fair in love and war. But when it comes to politics, let’s have some decorum.The office of the President of the United States of America is one of the world’s most powerful positions, and any person competing for that job ought to be a little better than the adversary.
Yeah, I’m just dreaming, because when I wake up, I know I’ll never see what I’m envisioning. Frankly, I think elections should be a lot like jury duty. Every citizen should have an equal chance to be president. When your number comes up, it’s your time to serve. You’d do it once for two years and you’d never have to serve again. I wonder how different this country would be if presidential elections were managed that way? Our government and electoral process is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. But they should change that to of the rich people, by the rich people, and for the rich people, because the common man (or woman) doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of coming close to getting elected. Not ever!