|
This is the part that interests me:
Voters shouldn't have to pick up a candidate's book to find out their in depth plan. The average voter does not have the time (or even interest) to read these people's books but rather expect for the candidates to lay their plans out so everyone can access and be informed if they so choose.
Hell, even "No Child Left Behind" sounded good to many people at first but its implementation was bad and it suffered the way many social programs suffer. It's an example of how seemingly proactive approaches can have positive and negative consequences.
What's going on is that regardless of how "exciting" and seemingly "groundbreaking" this election is, it is just the same old song and dance with different (and more diverse) players.
Every candidate will say what they think will get a vote, whether they will implement the plan or not--and whether the plan will work or not. The candidates who "sound good" or "look cool" right now should be given the same critical eye and approach that any other candidate is given.
With that said, as an Independent I'm not doing cartwheels over these candidates or what happened in South Carolina. My vote is still up in the air until I see something in a particular platform and candidate that grabs me on the Repub or Dem side. And that can grab America for social change. The education, Iraq war, and blahzey blah rhetoric is typical. The question is what's going to make this candidate follow through on this when she or he gets into the White House. And what's going to make the rest of the government and our citizens work together for what needs to get done--whatever folks think needs to get done (the debate over "what needs to get done"/"whose agenda matters" is another reason why nothing really gets done).
/end rant
|
Sorry, T La Rock, LL killed it. 
Threaded Mode
