On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The only thing voters should be told by a candidate are: 1. What have > they done to gain experience that makes them a good fit for the > position to which they are seeking election; 2. What they plan to do > if they get elected; 3. Where they stand on issues that are important > to voters. Period.
I can see this from a job interview sort of point of view. We, as voters, are interviewing the candidates and want to know why they would be good for the job. On the other hand, a political race differs from a job interview in that the candidates know one another. I think that it is reasonable for candidates to compare and contrast, since they have knowledge of the other candidates and we, as voters, don't get to directly ask/demand answers from the candidates for the job. If Candidate A supports the Social Security program as it is currently designed and Candidate B thinks that Social Security ought to be privatized, I'd say that that is a legitimate point of difference. If privatization wasn't polling well, you'd then see a situation where Candidate A makes an ad saying, "I support Social Security as it currently stands" and you'd probably then see Candidate B making an ad that says, "I support Social Security" without any mention that they support "it" but "it" is a radically different thing than what the average person might presume they meant. Now, we could just presume that the media would investigate and put out the information on the differences in some other form, like news reports, blog postings, etc. The media, however, doesn't have an exactly stellar track record of digging into policy differences and bringing them to light, let alone getting the public to pay attention. It would seem to me that it is the candidates job to sell themselves to the public as the best person for the job, but part of that is not only highlighting why they are a good candidate but also highlighting why they are a better candidate than the others. That's a normal part of a sales job. Cheers, Judah > If the voters want to know about a candidates criminal record, they > can go find out themselves - pretty sure Michael Vik's conviction and > jail sentence are a matter of public record. > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: >> >> I understand this position and can see the appeal. What I'm trying to >> find out though is who, exactly, should tell the voters that one of >> the people running for the office is a life long felon with a rap >> sheet a mile long. I'd argue that *someone* should mention it. If you >> agree that voters should be told about that, who then should do it? >> >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't care if I am running against a life long felon with a rap >>> sheet a mile long, none of my television ads nor mailings should be >>> allowed to mention them or anything they may have done. They should >>> only be allowed to mention what I have done/will do in the position to >>> which I am seeking to be elected and where I stand on certain issues. >>> That's it, nothing else >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:330532 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
