So I'm trying to get psyched about the next election. After all, the world's most powerful position (elected or otherwise) is up for grabs in a matter of months. In addition, there’s far too much global unrest and uncertainty. One would think they'd have a pretty stringent set of standards for selecting such a person. You know, the old "may the best man win" philosophy. But alas, I think this is wishful thinking. Maybe I need to tone down the enthusiasm.
The behavior you reward is the behavior you get --and our system of electing the President of the United States rewards some pretty shoddy behavior. The reason is that the opposing party (be it Democratic or GOP) is the only group that chooses who is to run against the incumbent. Democratic voters or Republican voters only represent a fraction of the country, and I believe this is a formula for disaster.
Case in point: Howard Dean. By pandering to a fraction of Democrats, he was almost able to win the Democratic ticket. In his peak, Dean supporters represented a fraction of a fraction of the general population -probably less than 15%. Should this tiny group of people really be the ones to determine an opponent for Bush? No way!
Republicans were having a field day because they knew such a marginal candidate could never take office in 2004. It wasn't till the 11th hour that Democratic voters finally seemed to figure this out, so eventually they chose to go with Kerry --no Dean, but still a very liberal Democrat.
So now Bush has these terrible approval ratings --barely above 40%, but Kerry still is having a very difficult time moving up in the polls. I think it's because Kerry is only an attractive alternative to Bush if you're a hardcore left winger. Kerry just isn’t a big hit among moderates and independents.
So here's the answer: Political parties need to rally behind and endorse people that have the best chance to win an election. Popularity amongst one’s own party should be next to worthless. Yes, it's important to find a candidate that embraces their party’s ideals. However, political parties only need to ask themselves two things:
1) Can we rally behind this guy (or does he embrace our ideals well enough)? If no, the candidate is out. If yes, then that candidate is thrown in with a small pool of other candidates.
2) Of all these candidates, who is the one most likely to win the GENERAL election.
This method would be win win. Parties would rally behind their candidate most likely to win, and it would automatically force parties to produce a more moderate candidate. This would produce a candidate that takes the general population to heart.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Democrats could have picked a much stronger candidate to run against Bush. Too bad the status quo, won’t allow for it.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
The Cannes Film Festival
Everyone at the Cannes film festival in France seems to be giddy over Michael Moore’s new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. Everyone seems to have something to say about it. I thought I’d join in on the fun and throw out my two cents as well.
Before I go any further, I’d just like to preface this by saying that I have not seen the film. I have read so many “reviews” where people wait until the last paragraph to admit they have not seen the flick, and I don’t appreciate it.
So no one on earth seems more delighted at the warm welcome of Fahrenheit 9/11 than Michael Moore himself. Indeed, if you know two things about the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, they probably are the following:
1. Fahrenheit 9/11 got the longest standing ovation in the history of the Firm festival (20 minutes).
2. Fahrenheit 9/11 was awarded top honors.
So why shouldn’t Moore be happy? He even took the opportunity to stick it to his own Commander in Chief, President Bush: “I hope nobody tells him that I have won this award while he is eating a pretzel.” (BTW, Bush choked on a pretzel a couple years ago.)
Even people that agree with Moore were turned off by that comment. They argue that if you want to have a credible documentary, you can’t take pithy cheap shots at those you’re trying to defame. I would have to agree.
But that’s beside the point I’m trying to make. All the reviews say the movie primarily attempts to uncover a symbiotic relationship between Bin Laden and Bush. I’m pretty confident that if you go into the movie taking every bit of information Moore presents as a fair, and genuinely true, you too will see the supposed connection. I’d even go so far as to say you’ll see a stronger connection between Bush and Bin Laden as you would with the Taliban and Bin Laden.
If that’s the case, I’d love to ask Moore why, then, he would NOT want Bush to choke on a pretzel. How many people out there don’t want this to happen to Mullah Omar?
See, Moore? A little perspective goes a long way, doesn’t it?
I’d also like to put something else into perspective --the warm welcome Moore’s movie has received. Does success equate with credibility? Of course not. Check this out! It’s called 9/11: The Big Lie.
link
This Frenchman, Thierry Meyssan, suggests the United States government actually flew remote control planes into the Trade Centers. Oh yeah, and that “plane” that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon was actually a missile fired by the U.S. government.
Ok so the guy’s a nut, no question. However, according to the link, his book, “went on France’s bestseller list in its second week and became the highest-grossing book in a single week in Europe ever.”
Hmm, maybe European success isn’t the gold standard in credibility.
One more thing on Moore. As I’ve already said, I have not seen Moore’s new movie. But I did see Bowling For Columbine. Probably the biggest injustice I saw in the movie was the way he handled the Kmart fiasco. For those that have not seen it, Moore went to Columbine to find survivors who had actually been shot and had the scars to proove it. By weilding these kids, Moore goes on this emotional Crusade. First (and only) stop: Kmart. Moore went to the corporate office of Kmart demanding they stop selling bullets at their stores. Kmart gives in to Moore's demands.
Moore tried to make Kmart out to be this big evil corporation (something he does on a routine basis). But instead, they did exactly what he wanted. But does anyone feel safer today?
Moore was able to make a billion dollar corporation bend over backwards for him, but, in reality, there's nothing to show for it. Moore's battles only do one thing: Make his pre-determined "bad guys" look bad. Even with the potent power he possesses, he wasn't able to change a thing.
His publicity stunt didn't work and it made him look dumb. He's completely powerless to right wrongs. Either that or he'd just prefer to make some person or business or organization look like pure evil.
That’s a shame because I’m sure he’ll use the same formula for his future documentary Sicko. With his influence, I’m confident Moore can right some wrongs in the US healthcare industry (heaven knows it has its share).
Before I go any further, I’d just like to preface this by saying that I have not seen the film. I have read so many “reviews” where people wait until the last paragraph to admit they have not seen the flick, and I don’t appreciate it.
So no one on earth seems more delighted at the warm welcome of Fahrenheit 9/11 than Michael Moore himself. Indeed, if you know two things about the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, they probably are the following:
1. Fahrenheit 9/11 got the longest standing ovation in the history of the Firm festival (20 minutes).
2. Fahrenheit 9/11 was awarded top honors.
So why shouldn’t Moore be happy? He even took the opportunity to stick it to his own Commander in Chief, President Bush: “I hope nobody tells him that I have won this award while he is eating a pretzel.” (BTW, Bush choked on a pretzel a couple years ago.)
Even people that agree with Moore were turned off by that comment. They argue that if you want to have a credible documentary, you can’t take pithy cheap shots at those you’re trying to defame. I would have to agree.
But that’s beside the point I’m trying to make. All the reviews say the movie primarily attempts to uncover a symbiotic relationship between Bin Laden and Bush. I’m pretty confident that if you go into the movie taking every bit of information Moore presents as a fair, and genuinely true, you too will see the supposed connection. I’d even go so far as to say you’ll see a stronger connection between Bush and Bin Laden as you would with the Taliban and Bin Laden.
If that’s the case, I’d love to ask Moore why, then, he would NOT want Bush to choke on a pretzel. How many people out there don’t want this to happen to Mullah Omar?
See, Moore? A little perspective goes a long way, doesn’t it?
I’d also like to put something else into perspective --the warm welcome Moore’s movie has received. Does success equate with credibility? Of course not. Check this out! It’s called 9/11: The Big Lie.
link
This Frenchman, Thierry Meyssan, suggests the United States government actually flew remote control planes into the Trade Centers. Oh yeah, and that “plane” that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon was actually a missile fired by the U.S. government.
Ok so the guy’s a nut, no question. However, according to the link, his book, “went on France’s bestseller list in its second week and became the highest-grossing book in a single week in Europe ever.”
Hmm, maybe European success isn’t the gold standard in credibility.
One more thing on Moore. As I’ve already said, I have not seen Moore’s new movie. But I did see Bowling For Columbine. Probably the biggest injustice I saw in the movie was the way he handled the Kmart fiasco. For those that have not seen it, Moore went to Columbine to find survivors who had actually been shot and had the scars to proove it. By weilding these kids, Moore goes on this emotional Crusade. First (and only) stop: Kmart. Moore went to the corporate office of Kmart demanding they stop selling bullets at their stores. Kmart gives in to Moore's demands.
Moore tried to make Kmart out to be this big evil corporation (something he does on a routine basis). But instead, they did exactly what he wanted. But does anyone feel safer today?
Moore was able to make a billion dollar corporation bend over backwards for him, but, in reality, there's nothing to show for it. Moore's battles only do one thing: Make his pre-determined "bad guys" look bad. Even with the potent power he possesses, he wasn't able to change a thing.
His publicity stunt didn't work and it made him look dumb. He's completely powerless to right wrongs. Either that or he'd just prefer to make some person or business or organization look like pure evil.
That’s a shame because I’m sure he’ll use the same formula for his future documentary Sicko. With his influence, I’m confident Moore can right some wrongs in the US healthcare industry (heaven knows it has its share).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)