nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Maybe if a guy has unlimited money and/or unlimited time, he could afford enough staff to competently research every single issue that might come up before he has to speak to it. [..]
If you're a Ronald Reagan or a Ross Perot, you have enough charisma that you don't need expertise on every issue and are allowed the luxury of focusing on two or three key things. Most aren't allowed to do that.
Well, first off, if
ever the presidential candidates had unlimited money to do any research they needed, it's now. Campaign after campaign, all money records have been smashed to pieces. The money this cycle's candidates will spend would probably feed a small Asian nation. So resources really is no excuse.
But moreover, I mean, we're hardly talking "every single issue that might come up" here, are we? I mean, this example of knowing the difference between the two strands of Islam - representing 1.4 billion (Sunnis) and 200 million (Shi'ites) Muslims, respectively - I mean, this is not some obscure local issue. This is as elementary as foreign policy gets.
I mean, you're embroiled in a wasting war in Iraq that is all
about the conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Hundreds of your soldiers are
dying because of the clash there between Sunnis and Shi'ites. And you have Congressmen who dont know the difference? Congressmen on the Foreign Intelligence Committee, like Bill says? That's just mindblowingly unbelievable!
AIDS in Africa, though it doesnt involve US soldiers, is hardly akin to the intricacies of tax deduction schemes either. (Sozobe probably has the real angle on McCain's gaffe on that one though.)
I mean, shouldnt we be able to agree on - lets call it the A2K-basic-knowledge-standard? Like this: anything that every one of
us in this conversation is able to formulate an articulate opinion on, a Congressman (let alone a presidential candidate!) should surely be able to say something about spontaneously too. If not, he has embarassed himself as not being worth his salt.
First, despite the mega millions that go through U.S. campaigns, most candidates who drop out do so because the money runs out long before the campaign is over. Add the Electoral College to the process in a country as large as the USA with our mostly incompetent national network news pulling a tiny fraction of the viewing or listening audience and the so-called national newspapers dealing with ever dwindling readership, it is imperative for the candidates to be able to put their ads into local newspapers and on local radio and television outlets. As this is a very large country, such advertising gobbles up many tens of millions of dollars over a period of weeks, let alone months. Most campaign staff are doing good just to keep on top of the polls, do damage control, manage the candidate's schedule and burnish his/her image. Add to this the cost of campaign literature, travel expenses for a huge entourage, mega salaries paid to public relations experts, and there really isn't a lot of cash left to pay people just to research issues and devise a comprehensive plan for dealing with them.
Yes, you are right that any candidate worthy to be president should know the general basics related to all the major issues. (Personally I think people should be required to know that before they are allowed to vote, but I probably wouldn't get anywhere with that kind of campaign.) That the candidate should have a plan formulated for dealing with all the issues before declaring his/her candidacy however is entirely unrealistic. It seems to be a presumed requirement that the candidate attack whatever the opposition is already doing to deal with the issue, but when the opposition has not found a solution after years of virtually unrestricted and/or unlimited resources, it's a pretty fair bet that the problem is not so easily resolved as some would want us to believe.
Also armchair quarterbacking is a national sport and is frequently applied to all walks of American life. It is always easier to say that given the chance, I would do this or I would do that, but when it comes to implementation of our grandiose convictions, we suddenly see all manner of issues and problems we didn't consider before.
Oddly enough, as much as George W. Bush is blasted and criticized and scorned and ridiculed and chastised, he is probably the most consistent president of the last 100 years in sticking with his campaign promises. You won't find many, if any, issues in which he doesn't believe now as he stated in his campaign rhetoric.
I hope in the next election we do elect a president who is smart, savvy, and committed to excellence. I hope this person is sufficiently wise to do his/her best to promote programs and policies that actually work and to do no harm. If we get that kind of person, I'll forgive him/her for not knowing the name of the dictator of some obscure banana republic or not being up on the price of milk this week.
. Are you kidding? This is what they do. This is ALL they do. Nimh works full time, NOT in politics; yet seems to have a working knowledge (at the very least) of every meaningful election across the globe. When I hear members of our foreign intelligence committee don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia; it makes me want to punch someone in the face.
