A New Low – Or Just Measuring Down To The Same Low Bar?

As the days before the election in November continue to count down, I’m starting to wonder if I’m not going to wear out before we get there – from of all of the political BS that’s being slung around these days. Despite my opinions about who I plan to vote for, and who I think is being more unfair at the given moment in this campaign, I think that both sides are equally at fault for all of this crap at different times. And it has me worried and wondering if we’re ever going to be able to unite again as a country or if, as one person I was speaking to recently said, it’s the “New American Civil War” – not fought with guns, but with words. So with this in mind, I once again found myself exasperated by what I saw on the Today Show this morning. Matt Lauer, Tim Pawlenty, and Bill Richardson – none of them were helping to clarify the situation – they were all just there to muck it up even more. I found what Pawlenty and Richardson had to say to be completely worthless – full of intellectual dishonesty – and other than depressing me at the state of political divisiveness with 48 days left to go, the only other thought I was left with was thank God these two aren’t the VP choices!

DISGUSTING.  On all fronts.  Lauer’s questions were just feeding into the problem.  Pawlenty stuck his foot in his mouth more than once.  And Richardson was the worst of all – total politician – when stuck, he’d just revert to a litany of things that he felt was wrong with McCain instead of answering the question.  Shame on the Today Show for even putting these two on the air.  They don’t even speak for the campaigns.  And what about a little honest talk from either of them.  Isn’t there a reasonable answer to why both McCain and Biden yesterday said that they did not support saving AIG, without the answer being that both of them are out of touch with the economy?  Isn’t it possible that someone could feel that we need to stop rewarding Wall Street greed (the new buzzword of the moment), but understand that some things are so big, they need to be aided so that the economy as a whole does not crumble?  (I don’t know if that’s really true or not – I’m not an economist, and don’t pretend to be one – but I do understand that you can oppose something in principle, but realize that sometimes we need to do things we don’t like.)  Or maybe the Treasury Department is privy to statistics that not every politician has?  I certainly think that many in the know on Wall Street were even surprised by the move – and by the fact the Dow is down in early trading – maybe don’t agree with it either.  But instead of answering the question directly, these two backpeddled and skirted around every part of the issue.  Maybe they feel they shouldn’t put words in the candidates mouths.  Good idea.  Maybe they should not have even been there in the first place.

And one last thing.  Does the media really think that the American public is so naive that we don’t know how fundraising for these campaigns work – that really it’s just a “necessary evil” (the only really smart thing Richardson said the entire time)?  Right or wrong, it takes a lot of money to run these campaigns – and neither side would be able to compete or even get their message out there properly without a lot of it.  So, they’re both equally guilty if you want to look at it that way.  It’s a crime, granted – but is it really a matter that either of them is elitist because a bunch of rich people like them enough to give them money?  Oh, no – Obama got $9 million from Beverly Hills wealthy entertainment folks and celebrities – is that really so terrible?  There are a lot of really bad places to get cash from – and like her or not (I’m not really a fan myself), I don’t find Barbra Streisand to be very threatening in that regard.  I mean, it’s not like she’s a lobbyist.  If anything, the large sums of cash these two have been able to raise at a singular function means the quicker they’re able to get back out there talking to the average American they supposedly don’t relate to now.  I say, take the money from those who can afford it – and have more time to devote to the issues and causes that affect the majority of the voting public.  And for either side to point the finger at the other for catering to the money from time to time is ludicrous.  They both do it – and should be embarrassed to suggest otherwise.