Thursday, June 28, 2007

Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 2 - 6.28.2007.2

Continued from Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 1...

No site is completely unbiased all the time. No blog writer, or any writer for that matter, is completely impartial. But when it comes to the next President of this nation, whose actions will impact generations to come, do we really want to elect someone that was the least negative of the pack?
Photo found at

At the same time, the Presidential candidates need to use the internet to better inform the public. They need to not just spam us with email blasts, or ask for money via the net and blogs. How about taking the time to answer the questions of the people? How about incorporating our questions into the multiple speeches, debates and press interviews?

I mean the questions and blogs of people less popular than Ann Coulter, or CNN, or the New York Times. How about using the internet to reach out to the people that actually vote. How about speaking to everyone in the world, in a consistent manner and not a soundbite laden speech in one part of the nation that conflicts with a special interest group speech they make in another part of the nation. How about a detailed answer to questions that take more than a glance to read.
Maybe answers to questions like

"Based on your reported desire to abolish the Department of Education (2002), what would you have to replace it and how would it function?"

"In regard to your stance on Roe v. Wade, you have said in 1999 that you would not repeal the law, though you wished there was no need for it. Recently you have changed your opinion to be actively against the law. What has caused your more aggressive stance?"

"Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been."

"Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?"

Questions don’t have to be negative, nor does the website. Information about the facts, positions and thoughts are what is important for the best choice for America’s future. The sooner that politicians use the internet for that, the sooner the nation gets results.

That’s what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates


At 2:59 PM, June 28, 2007 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, A. Coulter is not here to be a judge of right or wrong opinions of candidates, but to say "she wished John Edwards were killed by terrorists is quite another thing. Dear God , she needs sanity and salvation, who does she think she is ? No matter who we agree with, to wish death to another human is highly inhumane and inGodly, so where do her, if any values, lie? She is certainly someone we Americans need to keep away from Washington connections. We know that Mrs. Edwards is a LADY to be admired.
J. Cain, TN.

At 3:22 PM, June 28, 2007 , Blogger M. Vass said...

First I want to thank you J. Cain for responding and visiting the site.

As for Ann Coulter, I was not intending to refer to her other than to say that Presidential candidates respond to her and other bloggers that are highly polarized and on extreme fringes of the political spectrum.

I in NO WAY support her comments to wish death upon anyone, just as I do not support the comments of Bill Maher in wishing Mr. Dick Chenney dead, which she was referencing in that comment.

Extreme comments like those made by both individuals are not what the mainstream of America is interested in, or so I think. Many bloggers and pundits are very extreme in their views and the fact that our Presidential candidates often seek out and respond to these individuals instead of reaching out to the general public is upsetting.

I point out that I have sent several letter out to candidates of both parties, yet not one has bothered to even acknowledge the letters. Yet every candidate wants to use their websites to increase thier funds and gain supporters. Some of those supporters then use websites and bloggers to attack other candidates. I feel it's a poor and small-minded use of the internet. The candidates seem not to wish to be accountable to the public they state they want to serve, yet they are using the facade of connection (via the net) to simulate it.

Negative attacks are not what America needs. Full answers that take more than 30 seconds, plans that go farther than an immediate action, and intentions that improve the quality of life are what we need.

I'd like to see more of that. Wouldn't you?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Ask for ad rates