As soon as you begin discussing the budget or tax policy, people tune out. They
like the superficial fluff, that's what they base their votes on. They want
entertainment, not substance. A candidate who discusses the real workings of
federal spending would be lucky to get 10% of the vote.Polls
consistently show that the American public says the government is too big and
spends too much. But when given a list of everything the government does, they
find nothing they are willing to cut. They'd rather keep complaining in
ignorance than take time to actually look at a summary of the budget.We get what we deserve.
It would be nice if Romney would acually say what his plans are, insead of just
spouting platiudes and ambiguities. What tax deducations would he eliminate?
How would he pay for his massive tax cut? He talks in wide sweeps, but says
nohing definite. And it would be REALLY nice if he would stop flip-flopping all
Instead of arguing what Obama called the attack on our embassy in Libya, why
doesn't he give us specifics on (any) of his plans? I don't care
whether the President called the attack a terrorist attack or something else. We
all know that it was an attack, people died, etc. Other than give
more tax cuts to the rich, what are Romney's plans?
This is an excellent letter. It's too bad that it is completely true.But in a nation where more people routinely vote for the current
American Idol contestant that for President of the United States, what else can
@Dave Argyle of Riverton, I agree with your premise but when you have the 4th
estate as the chief benefactor of the obscene cash flowing through campaigns and
the secret PAC's is there any reason to believe we will see anything else?
We have more media than we have ever had and less substantial reporting with
most just using others work. I feel it is a direct link to the deterioration of
@Furry1993:"It would be nice if Romney would acually say what
his plans are, insead of just spouting platiudes and ambiguities."Ain't it the truth. On the other hand, Obama tells it in explicit
details... 'hope and change.'
What's especially sad is that this election will be decided by a host of
voters who know nothing about the state of our economy beyond their prejudices
and the superficial claims of candidates. Voters are so uninterested in learning
what we should really be doing to fix the broken system we have created that
they truly do get what they deserve: massive deficits, politicians who tell them
what they want to hear, and a growing inequality that will eventually starve the
consumer economy we've preferred for the past fifty years.When
people start demanding more details and more truth from the candidates,
we'll get it. But as long as we're ignorant and closed-minded,
we'll continue to have elections like the present one.
@wrz 11:08 a.m. Oct. 18, 2012On the other hand, Obama tells it in
explicit details... 'hope and change.'------------------------Actually that SHOULD read: Obama tells it
in explicit details... (paraphrasing) I'm going to get BinLaden. And then
he gave the orders and approved the mission that did. Mission accomplished --
thank you Mr. President and all the valliant men who did the deed.
@Furry1993:Actually that SHOULD read: Obama tells it in explicit
details... I'm going to get BinLaden. And then he gave the orders and
approved the mission that did."OK, he got Obama. But what about
Osama's #2 in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who announced recently, God
willing, your end will be at the hands of the Muslim nation, so that the world
and history will be free of your crimes and lies."You get one of
their leaders and ten other terrorists step up to take over.
The logic of ALL candidates running for office is that saying what you are
"for" is a losing strategy since it opens up the discussion of the
details. The surest way to election is to base your campaign and ads on what the
opponent will do in office or what they did in the past. This way their only
option is to defend themselves and hence be behind before they start. The last
race in Utah that was fought on issues was the Huntsman vs. Matheson race for
Governor. Everyone today knows you go after your opponent or go home.
Ford DeTreeseOK, so where does one find the truth about the
candidates, the economy and the world? It seems all our present sources of
information are tainted by ulterior motives. I try to keep an open mind, but
people keep trying to dump trash into it, thrash like the system is broken and I
can fix it.
It doesn't help when we learn that Romney had a conference call with a
bunch of big wig corporate bosses to tell them it would be okay if they
"encouraged" their employees to vote the right way -- threatening their
employment if Obama is elected. Not illegal, but can you say intimidation? How
about "unrighteous dominion"?Who is this man Romney?
@Mike in Cedar City:It doesn't help when we learn that Romney
had a conference call with a bunch of big wig corporate bosses to tell them it
would be okay if they "encouraged" their employees to vote..."What's your view of Obama telling defense contractors not to give
the requisite 90 day layoff notices when defense contracts need to be cut?"Who is this man Romney?"The next president of the
Thank goodness Which Romney is not a politician.
A good example of what the letter writer and Roland are talking about is Ron
Paul. You might not agree with the man, but of any candidate in 2012 he is the
only one with an actual plan that talks about actual issues. He was thrashed in
the GOP primaries. Hillary actually had a real plan in the Democratic debates in
2008. Again, you might not like her plan, but she had a legit plan. She got a
beat down in the primary. The average citizen wants to see a show in the
debates, not a discussion of issues. Our elections are about who is cooler, not
who would be better at running the country and it's sad.
I recommend that you check out this guy, Daniel Geery Senatorial Candidate.It happens to be myself, but I do think I have ideas you may be