Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Random Presidential Race Rant (Casting In With...)

Hip-hop on the speakers, pundits on the tv. It's times like this that my brain seems to take off to explore every tangent. Thanks to my grandfather, it frequently stumbles upon some political event, and languishes in the event's absurdity.  The persnickety campaign coverage, with its Escher-like logic, never fails to leave me flabbergasted. The talking heads love taking a ten-word statement and spinning an entire, and usually inaccurate, narrative. With sensationalist muck-raking and deceitful pundits spewing blatant propaganda (both sides are just as guilty of this, but in completely different ways), the media has become a cesspool of amateurism, half-truths, and shaky ethics. Still, I stay tuned in, but, always, I wonder why. Perhaps I'm a masochist.

In respect to the on-going presidential race, I've already decided which candidate will get my vote. Obama's first term left me with mixed feelings. He's had a start-and-stall presidency, thus far. When he took office, I was hopeful. I truly believed that he would follow through with his promise of change, but faced with the "just say no" policy adopted by house and senate Republicans, and the utter lack of cohesion amongst Democrats in congress, most of his more promising initiatives fell flat on the floor (pun intended?).

Almost every day, I hear someone refer to Obama as a socialist. If these people read a book every once in a while, or, you know, read a newspaper, they would see the sheer idiocy of that statement. A candidate who willingly takes money from monolithic banking institutions, can not be, in any sense of the word, a socialist. However, the fact that he's been paid for by Goldman Sachs wears on my nerves. Part of why I wanted him in office was I believed he could bring forth some common sense economic measures.

In spite of all his faults, I still cannot bring myself to abstain from voting. Romney is the embodiment of the culture of ignorance that we need to be fighting tooth and nail. Putting a corporate fat cat, with a penchant for switching up his ideology when it benefits him or his backers, in the White House would be disastrous for the American people.

So, with only a bit of reluctance, I will be casting my vote for Obama, out of fear of Romney and hope that Obama will be more aggressive with his initiatives in the future.


  1. Michael, the folks who insist on callin g President Obama a socialist, or a nazi or worse don't read books or newspapers. They listen to talk radio and FOX News almost 24/7. They are fed a steady diet of talking points, and the fact is this-->you only have to hear something repeated 17 times to believe it is true.

    It's just that simple.

    1. Unfortunately, that's sometimes not the case. I have a few friends, who are articulate, educated, and rational, yet still insist Obama is a socialist. Granted, most of these friends are Libertarian. Honestly, I think it all boils down to education. Critical thinking skills are not widely taught in US public schools. If you've ever had to deal with writing a research paper using MLA format, you know what I'm talking about.

      Also,MSNBC is guilty of spewing "talking points" in the guise of news. If I considered CNN a news station, I would say they're heavily biased as well. Average Americans are at the mercy of a press dedicated to ratings and sales, rather than fact and integrity.

  2. Michael
    I have to disagree a little bit.

    After the passage of Dodd-Frank,Goldman Sachs and Wall Street are no longer supporting Obama and the Democrats.

    MSNBC is guilty of spewing "talking points" in the guise of news... MSNBC is mostly a counterweight to Fox News, and which is an arm of the Republican Party. True,MSNBC, breaks down the Romney talking points that night and discusses how to counter that. ... If you want actual news, NPR,PBS and the network news is still available...CNN goes overboard to their decrement in trying to remain neutral.... The politicians have to be challenged not allow disprove their talking points to no end...IMO

    1. I'll concede the point concerning Dodd-Frank/Goldman Sachs. Hopefully, he'll get another four years. Presidents are typically more aggressive and brazen in their second term.

      I realize MSNBC exist as a counterpoint to the right's propaganda machine, and in this it serves a necessary function. My problems with the media involve CNN and Foxnews to a greater degree than NPR, PBS and the network reporters (CNN for its sheer amateurism and affinity for public interest pieces, and Foxnews for being utterly batshit).

      I take issue with the fact that these major news networks are the primary battlefield for the presidential campaigns, but by failing to give the viewers a accurate portrayal of both candidates, they do the American people a disservice. The pundits and "anchors" have become nearly indistinguishable from one another. Opinion is often treated as fact. Understandably, if I want news I could chose a source with a decent hard news aesthetic, but the majority of Americans do not think this way.Perhaps, I'd be happier if the "info" they shared would come with some sort of disclaimer.