Hello to our faithful blog readers. This is Mike, composing a few thoughts on the race for the White House. For those of you who know M & M, you know we're both interested in politics, so you had to see this one coming.
Let's start with the funny. By now, you may have seen the video of Chuck Norris stumping for Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. If you have seen it, come on, you know you want to watch it again! If you haven't seen it, here it is for your viewing pleasure.
I don't want to dwell too much on the bad (there's plenty of that to go around when it comes to politics), but I'd have to say that the worst part of the presidential race, so far, has been the media coverage. How many times have we heard that Mitt Romney needs to make a "JFK-style speech" about his religious beliefs? The fact that reporters keep making the comparison between Romney and JFK without much analysis highlights the shallowness of media coverage of the campaigns so far. (I did hear some in-depth reporting on the Romney-JFK connection on NPR a couple of days ago, after Mitt made his long-awaited speech. Here's the link to the story I'm referring to: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16981132.)
Like I said, I don't want to harp on this too much, but I've also been frustrated by the way the media uses the language of fist-fighting and boxing to describe candidates' disagreements, and I'm tired of the media's constantly emphasizing "top-tier" vs. "second-tier" candidates. Listening to, watching, or reading the news, you almost feel like it's a foregone conclusion that the general election will be between Rudy Giuliani and Hilary Clinton. Sometimes it feels like reporters forget that it's up to voters to decide who will win their party's nomination.
Where's the good in all this? Allow me to quote Barack Obama. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, "a polarized electorate isn't good enough. What's needed is a broad majority of Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill - who are reengaged in the project of national renewal, and who see their own self-interest as inextricably linked to the interests of others" (40). Is it possible for citizens who are sharply divided along party lines to unite for the common good in some way? I hope so, and I'm very glad to see at least one candidate who is talking about cooperation and unity across party lines. Whoever wins in 2008, I'm hopeful that the "project of national renewal" Obama refers to will become a reality. Until then, enjoy the circus of Election 2008!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I did your test thing with the candidates and my best 'fit' was mike huckabee. With a chuck norris endorsement now...well not endorsement but telling the world how its gonna be.
Our family has talked about and engaged in what we call "The great conversation." (TGC) Although our involvement in TGC has been about exploring great ideas from Aristotle to Einstein, we might consider the same friendly, reasoned, and sometimes hotly contested foray into politics. Also, LDS people should use Mitt Romney's national exposure to highlight positive aspects of our Church. Let the battle begin, continue...whatever! Garth
Thanks for the insightful post. I LOVE the Norris/Huckabee ad. I, too took a test to find my best fit and Huckabee was at the top of my list. I have also been sick of the Romney/LDS talk. And I don't like the fact that people assume that all LDS people will automatically vote for Mitt because he's LDS. Just because we share a common faith doesn't mean I think he's the best fit to lead our country. Oh, well!
Post a Comment