More on Unity 08

I went, as I hope you will, to the website for Unity 08. ( www.unity08.com ) There is a link to the article in The Atlantic that I mentioned in my other blog and tons more information on the organization and what they stand for and hope to accomplish.

One of the pages on their site is called The Shoutbox. On this page there are a number of strings of conversation relating to issues that people are concerned about and want debated in the upcoming campaign. What was interesting to me is the largest concern, based on the number of participants was a debate on what people wanted from their politicians. It was interesting to me, because on this the day of President Bush’s State of the Union Address in 2007, the press would have us think that the only issue that is worth talking about is the War in Iraq.

Now anyone has to agree that the situation in Iraq is bad and we need to have a long overdue debate and some plan to end our involvement, but what is apparent to me is that again the national press ay be entirely misreading the reason for discontent in the American public. Maybe it’s Iraq, maybe it’s healthcare, maybe it’s the economy and maybe, just maybe, it’s business as usual in the beltway. My bet is on the last reason.

Like a Broadway show that has run to long the American people are not only looking for something new fresh and positive I think they are fed up with the old one.

One of the contributors to this section of the Shoutbox, makes mention of having a candidate tell the voters what he or she will do about an issue, not what the opponent didn’t do. He wants his candidate to tell the truth about their position on all of the issues instead of riding the wave of public sentiment and issue-of-the-week mania. This in spite of the fact that the stance my be controversial and might be out of favor. Why should a candidate do this even though it might cost him votes? Because, it is an honest appeal for support. The theory is that while we may not agree with the candidate on all of the issues, (there is no candidate that we agree with on all of the issues in any case), we will reward the honest candidate with our vote vs. the candidate the dodges the issues in an attempt to avoid discovery and controversy. If both candidates are forth coming than the one that wins will be the one that is representing the majority of the public will. Is this politics as we wish it was and have no basis in reality? I submit that the reason John McCain and Barak Obama command such attention is that they are this type of candidate.

The other thing you will notice is that on the issues being debated in the Shoutbox that gay marriage, flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion are nowhere to be found in the top of the list of things people are concerned about.

Could it be that people are concerned about these issues, but have come to realize that there is no need for a legislative remedy for a solution to these problems? Is it possible that people finally realize that while the majority of attention is being paid to these issues in many campaigns that it is like the magician slight of hand? We are subjected to a diversion so we do not pay attention to what we really should be concerned about.