Over the past two weeks, the American public has had the opportunity for a mere introduction to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I say "mere introduction" because the debate format followed by MSNBC in both cases limited candidates to 30-60 second responses...hardly enough time to get in a sound bite, let alone convey real substance. But what else can you do when you've got 8 Democratic and 10 Republican candidates taking their turn and vying for 90 minutes of our attention? Hardly a real chance for any of the second tier candidates to vault into the top tier.
During the next several months, we are bound to see the fields narrowing (even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich finally throw their hats in the ring) but, even so, there must be a better way to design these debates so that there is equal opportunity without sacrificing substance.
Wouldn't it be more effective to allow the top three candidates in each party (by polling) automatic entry in a debate and then take turns using one of the second tier candidates so that there are only four candidates on a stage in any given debate? That way we, the American public, can size him up against our front-runners and decide if we should re-think our favorites. It seems like they're having one debate a month, so we'd probably be able to get through the entire field on both sides by the end of summer or early fall (particularly since some are likely to drop out before then due to lack of funds, etc.).
In any case, once each party determines its nominee, I really hope the powers that be (nominees, party officials, and media) will decide to have some very substantive debates leading up to election day, much like those proposed by Gingrich and described in an earlier posting to this blog.
Marvin Kalb made an interesting suggestion along those lines in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/opinion/05kalb.html?ex=1336017600&en=2f82cbd351dd9cbd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Let's take advantage of all these major networks and cable stations and make them all bow to their responsibility to inform the public.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Our Society's Sickness
While there are many wonderful aspects to our free government and society, there is also an inherent danger in the capitalism on which it's built...and one we must always guard against: that is that the almighty dollar may become more important than the people it is supposed to serve...it becomes the master, not the servant.
I have begun to think of this more and more with recent news coverage, particularly in light of the recent horror at Virginia Tech. This may seem a strange connection, but not if you read the articulate, well thought out essay by Alice Mathias, a Dartmouth college student, that was published in today's New York Times:
http://thegraduates.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/a-killers-media-wish-fulfilled/
Essentially, her point is this: the opportunity to make money off of any story or event will oftentimes lead us to make choices that are not necessarily for the best public good. Members of the media have an increasingly important responsibility to communicate news without, shall we say, "relishing" it.
And that's just what Fox, MSNBC, CNN and even the major network news shows do these days. They beat a story to death through sensationalism and, in the process, immunize us, the viewers, from its true effect. Why do they do this? Because they know it will appeal to all of our baser instincts. Like the ancient Romans gathering to the Coliseum to watch deadly games from a safe distance, we gather in our living rooms day and night to gaze at our televisions and catch all the news that is so often anymore not only not fit to print, but not fit to be seen.
When NBC dangled the killer's videotaped rant out there, how many of us resisted tuning in? I know I didn't. Am I the better for it? Not really. I think I'll begin tuning into ABC again where I hear they are taking a more responsible approach to news coverage.
So what does this have to do with presidential politics? Not much except that, for the most part, we get our view of these candidates through the media. So we should remember that they're likely to present what is most saleable...not necessarily what is most true about a candidate.
I have begun to think of this more and more with recent news coverage, particularly in light of the recent horror at Virginia Tech. This may seem a strange connection, but not if you read the articulate, well thought out essay by Alice Mathias, a Dartmouth college student, that was published in today's New York Times:
http://thegraduates.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/a-killers-media-wish-fulfilled/
Essentially, her point is this: the opportunity to make money off of any story or event will oftentimes lead us to make choices that are not necessarily for the best public good. Members of the media have an increasingly important responsibility to communicate news without, shall we say, "relishing" it.
And that's just what Fox, MSNBC, CNN and even the major network news shows do these days. They beat a story to death through sensationalism and, in the process, immunize us, the viewers, from its true effect. Why do they do this? Because they know it will appeal to all of our baser instincts. Like the ancient Romans gathering to the Coliseum to watch deadly games from a safe distance, we gather in our living rooms day and night to gaze at our televisions and catch all the news that is so often anymore not only not fit to print, but not fit to be seen.
When NBC dangled the killer's videotaped rant out there, how many of us resisted tuning in? I know I didn't. Am I the better for it? Not really. I think I'll begin tuning into ABC again where I hear they are taking a more responsible approach to news coverage.
So what does this have to do with presidential politics? Not much except that, for the most part, we get our view of these candidates through the media. So we should remember that they're likely to present what is most saleable...not necessarily what is most true about a candidate.
Monday, April 9, 2007
An Interesting Proposal
I came across an interesting idea from E. J. Dionne Jr. in last Monday's Washington Post: States have begun a movement to bypass the Electoral College by passing legislation that will lead to popular election of the president.
How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."
I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?
There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."
As Dionne puts it:
"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.
"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.
"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?
"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."
I agree. What do you think?
How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."
I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?
There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."
As Dionne puts it:
"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.
"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.
"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?
"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."
I agree. What do you think?
Romney Needs to Explain His Faith
With so much additional coverage now that he's a front-runner in terms of fundraising, Mitt Romney shouldn't wait much longer to delineate how and why his LDS faith will or won't impact on his ability to serve as President. Given a coming onslaught of publicity about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he can't afford to hang back much longer and hope American voters will ignore his membership in a church they know so little about.
A major PBS documentary (The Mormons) will air in two parts on April 30th and May 1st, taking a four-hour look at the nation's fourth largest religious denomination. Its director said her intent is to shatter all the stereotypes and clear up the ignorance that surrounds this church. And then there is the less-than-flattering feature film, September Dawn. Due out May 4th, it stars Jon Voight and deals with an embarassing and tragic chapter in the history of the church: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While the former televised documentary is likely to be quite a bit more even-handed and accurate than this Hollywood depiction, PBS can never hope to get the size of audience that a violent feature film can...particularly when said film is tied to 9-11 the way this one has been.
So what should Romney do to maintain control of the message? (After all, in politics, it's always a good idea to get your own story out before everyone else does.)
As proposed in an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times, since the former Massachusetts governor is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May, it would provide a perfect opportunity to outline his faith before an audience of conservative evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1333771200&en=097454d4ea769eea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Up to now, he has been hesitant to do just that, thinking (and perhaps rightly) that a presidential candidate's personal faith should have no bearing on his/her ability to function in the White House. But with all polls indicating that Americans are far less likely to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or an African American, he needs to speak out and convince them that his faith should pose no barrier...otherwise, he cannot hope to be elected.
A major PBS documentary (The Mormons) will air in two parts on April 30th and May 1st, taking a four-hour look at the nation's fourth largest religious denomination. Its director said her intent is to shatter all the stereotypes and clear up the ignorance that surrounds this church. And then there is the less-than-flattering feature film, September Dawn. Due out May 4th, it stars Jon Voight and deals with an embarassing and tragic chapter in the history of the church: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While the former televised documentary is likely to be quite a bit more even-handed and accurate than this Hollywood depiction, PBS can never hope to get the size of audience that a violent feature film can...particularly when said film is tied to 9-11 the way this one has been.
So what should Romney do to maintain control of the message? (After all, in politics, it's always a good idea to get your own story out before everyone else does.)
As proposed in an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times, since the former Massachusetts governor is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May, it would provide a perfect opportunity to outline his faith before an audience of conservative evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1333771200&en=097454d4ea769eea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Up to now, he has been hesitant to do just that, thinking (and perhaps rightly) that a presidential candidate's personal faith should have no bearing on his/her ability to function in the White House. But with all polls indicating that Americans are far less likely to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or an African American, he needs to speak out and convince them that his faith should pose no barrier...otherwise, he cannot hope to be elected.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Global Warming: A Must Issue
The person we elect as President in 2008 must be ready and able to deal with the issue of Global Warming. I believe it is no longer a matter of debate (even the Bush Administration is acknowledging it as a major concern) and we should take the time to find out now where each candidate stands on this issue.
An important barometer of the effect of global warming was released the other day by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and written up by all the major newspapers, including the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ex=1333684800&en=612362632f25e1ac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
With our coastal cities at greater risk, increasing drought conditions in the American Southwest, and the threat of even more flooding in the Mississippi delta, our next American President cannot afford to ignore this issue...particularly because steps need to be taken immediately if we are to reduce the vulnerabilities. And that is only taking into consideration our own country. Many of the poorest areas of the world are going to be hit the hardest. It is time for the United States to take the lead at home and abroad in such a crucial effort.
An important barometer of the effect of global warming was released the other day by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and written up by all the major newspapers, including the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ex=1333684800&en=612362632f25e1ac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
With our coastal cities at greater risk, increasing drought conditions in the American Southwest, and the threat of even more flooding in the Mississippi delta, our next American President cannot afford to ignore this issue...particularly because steps need to be taken immediately if we are to reduce the vulnerabilities. And that is only taking into consideration our own country. Many of the poorest areas of the world are going to be hit the hardest. It is time for the United States to take the lead at home and abroad in such a crucial effort.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The Power of On-Line Democracy
Getting out the vote on-line is becoming more and more important, as evidenced by recently announced efforts on two well-known websites: www.moveon.org and www.myspace.com
The liberal Move On group is kicking off a short series of virtual town hall meetings with most of the candidates focusing on one topic at a time. First up is Iraq and it's scheduled for Tuesday, April 10th. It will feature all the candidates except Brownback, Gravel, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo. In preparation, Move On contacted all its members, inviting them to submit audio recorded questions dealing with Iraq (and Iran), and then asked its members to vote on the best questions, tossing out those deemed off-topic or too impolite. Though I haven't done much with Move On lately, I was contacted and submitted 2 questions myself. It will be interesting to see if either of them made it to the final selection. Future topics include Global Warming and Health Care.
The organizers are also encouraging Move On members to host house parties for the April 10th on-line meeting, with 802 already organized across the country. I'll provide more details as they become available, or feel free to simply go to their website to learn more.
My Space is going straight for the vote and succeeding where other mere states have failed: they have scheduled their own Primary in advance of either Iowa or New Hampshire on January 1st and 2nd in 2008. Supposedly, 85% of My Space users are 18 or older, so all the candidates are taking this website very seriously and each has their own "space" on the site. By far, Barack Obama has the most "friends" currently and would likely win this Primary if it were held today. It will be interesting to see if his popularity holds up over the next eight months and whether this on-line Primary in any way foreshadows the others. (My guess is that it won't.)
I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see Move On do the same kind of thing and ask their members to vote in an on-line Primary early next year. Whatever happens, it's clear that on-line democracy is here to stay!
The liberal Move On group is kicking off a short series of virtual town hall meetings with most of the candidates focusing on one topic at a time. First up is Iraq and it's scheduled for Tuesday, April 10th. It will feature all the candidates except Brownback, Gravel, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo. In preparation, Move On contacted all its members, inviting them to submit audio recorded questions dealing with Iraq (and Iran), and then asked its members to vote on the best questions, tossing out those deemed off-topic or too impolite. Though I haven't done much with Move On lately, I was contacted and submitted 2 questions myself. It will be interesting to see if either of them made it to the final selection. Future topics include Global Warming and Health Care.
The organizers are also encouraging Move On members to host house parties for the April 10th on-line meeting, with 802 already organized across the country. I'll provide more details as they become available, or feel free to simply go to their website to learn more.
My Space is going straight for the vote and succeeding where other mere states have failed: they have scheduled their own Primary in advance of either Iowa or New Hampshire on January 1st and 2nd in 2008. Supposedly, 85% of My Space users are 18 or older, so all the candidates are taking this website very seriously and each has their own "space" on the site. By far, Barack Obama has the most "friends" currently and would likely win this Primary if it were held today. It will be interesting to see if his popularity holds up over the next eight months and whether this on-line Primary in any way foreshadows the others. (My guess is that it won't.)
I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see Move On do the same kind of thing and ask their members to vote in an on-line Primary early next year. Whatever happens, it's clear that on-line democracy is here to stay!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards Cites Magic Johnson
I'm not as able as I once was to stay up late and watch ABC's "Nightline," so I missed the telecast last night of their interview with Elizabeth Edwards and her children. Fortunately, it's available online in their webcast and I checked it out today. Lo and behold, I found I wasn't too far off-base in comparing this fine lady with Magic Johnson in a recent column.
See for yourself by clicking on http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002817 (that is, if you missed the broadcast like me).
In any case, I am more and more assured that this family will be fine, whether in the White House or not.
See for yourself by clicking on http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002817 (that is, if you missed the broadcast like me).
In any case, I am more and more assured that this family will be fine, whether in the White House or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
