A recent Associated Content article by Carol Gilbert was based on a web survey at positivepress.com. The survey consists of 12 statements. The outcome is supposed to tell you which presidential hopeful aligns
with your views on the issues.
Web surveys and their accuracy aside, the quiz stirred my juices. The glitz of politics over-shadows the issues. Name recognition and advertising money go much further than the candidate's stand on the issues. Politicians can dance around the issues in a 45 minute speech and people still will vote for them.
Hillary Clinton's speech in Selma, Alabama a few months ago comes to mind. She spent a lot of time pandering. Not once did she hit on one substantive issue. Her attempt to relate to the crowd via a poor rendition of a southern accent was the highlight of her babbling. Yet, she is considered a front-runner.
But I didn't write this to Hillary-bash. This article is about the issues. If we had a succinct score card of the candidates and where they fall on the issues, how would that change our perception? In our media-shaped culture, could we cut through the gloss and vote for the meat?
Let's take a look at the survey. The choices for your answers are "Yes," "No," or "My vote will be based to a large extent on the candidate's position on this issue." The last one is a crutch for those who would be swayed by gloss. The whole point is to see how your views line up with the candidates. You have to have an opinion first. I only answered yes or no because I actually have an opinion.
Here's how it went. Enter the frightening world that would be if I were president.
1. We should continue in this war until Iraq is a stable democracy.
Yes. The real question is how do you define "stable"? Personally, I think we're closer to that goal than the daily death count would lead us to believe. The fact that we are building schools and infrastructure in Iraq goes unreported on the media death watch. The last big hurdle is to train a decent Iraqi police force. Once they prove they have the will to police their own, we can start pulling out.
Web surveys and their accuracy aside, the quiz stirred my juices. The glitz of politics over-shadows the issues. Name recognition and advertising money go much further than the candidate's stand on the issues. Politicians can dance around the issues in a 45 minute speech and people still will vote for them.
Hillary Clinton's speech in Selma, Alabama a few months ago comes to mind. She spent a lot of time pandering. Not once did she hit on one substantive issue. Her attempt to relate to the crowd via a poor rendition of a southern accent was the highlight of her babbling. Yet, she is considered a front-runner.
But I didn't write this to Hillary-bash. This article is about the issues. If we had a succinct score card of the candidates and where they fall on the issues, how would that change our perception? In our media-shaped culture, could we cut through the gloss and vote for the meat?
Let's take a look at the survey. The choices for your answers are "Yes," "No," or "My vote will be based to a large extent on the candidate's position on this issue." The last one is a crutch for those who would be swayed by gloss. The whole point is to see how your views line up with the candidates. You have to have an opinion first. I only answered yes or no because I actually have an opinion.
Here's how it went. Enter the frightening world that would be if I were president.
1. We should continue in this war until Iraq is a stable democracy.
Yes. The real question is how do you define "stable"? Personally, I think we're closer to that goal than the daily death count would lead us to believe. The fact that we are building schools and infrastructure in Iraq goes unreported on the media death watch. The last big hurdle is to train a decent Iraqi police force. Once they prove they have the will to police their own, we can start pulling out.



(Guest)