A presidential campaign has a lot of elements. There are a lot of different areas and events that can be used to promote one candidate over the other. Most of these should be used to point out the things that the candidate has done and wants to do. Many of them are used, however, as a means to down grade the other candidate. They say that if all you can do is to throw dirt, you will lose the ground you need to stand on.
One of the candidates for the 2012 race does try talk more about his record than about the other person. This campaign, however, does have elements of down talking. Both of the current candidates do have records that can be checked out. One stands by his and the other pretends he has not been in charge for the last several years.
One of them has signed the front of paychecks, before, and the other has not. One has a record of actual change and building companies and economies. The other one has not done so and is, interestingly, uninterested in doing so. This is based on statements he has made, in previous campaigns, about how some companies must go bankrupt in order to get the economy back.
The big things are what presidential campaigns should be about. The United States has a large impact, financially, on the entire world. The economy is the largest and is traded in by all other countries. A Presidential candidate should know these influences we have and do no harm in these areas. This current campaign has a clear choice between who does and who does not know this.
Campaigns in the past have been mean and depended a lot on people not understanding the issues. In many ways, this current one has been doing the same things. One candidate is talking about issues that have a very small constituency. The other candidate tries to address the larger issues of the budget, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the looming debt.
Because of the large difference in histories and experiences, the largest difference in many years, one can talk about them and the other can not. Their individual records play an important role in what can be discussed by each. It is these differences that will ultimately make each sound qualified or not to the voting public.
There is a possibility that the presidential campaign contest can be turned around into something that can be counted on to give the information that is missing today. Many more debates with less biased moderators would be one of those changes. A little fact finding by a press that has, largely, given up its objectivity will also assist in this effort.
The presidential campaign of 2012 will go down in history as one of the nastiest ever. One candidate has repeatedly called the other a murderer. The other contender for the office can not address the comments made by his opponent because he will automatically be called a racist. Until we have a major overhaul in United States politics, we are going to be faced with this problem.
One of the candidates for the 2012 race does try talk more about his record than about the other person. This campaign, however, does have elements of down talking. Both of the current candidates do have records that can be checked out. One stands by his and the other pretends he has not been in charge for the last several years.
One of them has signed the front of paychecks, before, and the other has not. One has a record of actual change and building companies and economies. The other one has not done so and is, interestingly, uninterested in doing so. This is based on statements he has made, in previous campaigns, about how some companies must go bankrupt in order to get the economy back.
The big things are what presidential campaigns should be about. The United States has a large impact, financially, on the entire world. The economy is the largest and is traded in by all other countries. A Presidential candidate should know these influences we have and do no harm in these areas. This current campaign has a clear choice between who does and who does not know this.
Campaigns in the past have been mean and depended a lot on people not understanding the issues. In many ways, this current one has been doing the same things. One candidate is talking about issues that have a very small constituency. The other candidate tries to address the larger issues of the budget, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the looming debt.
Because of the large difference in histories and experiences, the largest difference in many years, one can talk about them and the other can not. Their individual records play an important role in what can be discussed by each. It is these differences that will ultimately make each sound qualified or not to the voting public.
There is a possibility that the presidential campaign contest can be turned around into something that can be counted on to give the information that is missing today. Many more debates with less biased moderators would be one of those changes. A little fact finding by a press that has, largely, given up its objectivity will also assist in this effort.
The presidential campaign of 2012 will go down in history as one of the nastiest ever. One candidate has repeatedly called the other a murderer. The other contender for the office can not address the comments made by his opponent because he will automatically be called a racist. Until we have a major overhaul in United States politics, we are going to be faced with this problem.
About the Author:
Find an exciting novel about a conspiracy surrounding the presidential campaign by visiting our official website at www.patlawrence.net today. Meet the husband and wife writing team responsible for this book by clicking the links at http://www.patlawrence.net now.
