To the mainstream media: I have been very unhappy with how the MSM is always asking the wrong questions. Of course, there is freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution, so you have carte blanche to keep asking the wrong questions. I might note, though, that, for those of us who aren’t gullible enough to believe everything you try to spoonfeed us, such persistence has not only shred your credibility a long time ago, but it also prompts people like me to run to my blog to publicly call attention to your lapses in credibility.
The MSM has been making much ado about polls that ask questions like:
“Who is more in touch with the middle class?”
“Which candidate has more in common with you?”
“Which candidate is more like you?”
The problem with these questions is that they are being posed in the context of the race for POTUS. The more appropriate context for such polling would be in legislative races, such as Ohio’s U.S. Senate race between Josh Mandel and Sherrod Brown. For the Presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a more appropriate question would be something like, “Which candidate has the better track record and resume as a leader and administrator?”
The U.S. Constitution not only separated our federal government into three separate branches, (executive, legislative, and judicial), but it also inserted a system of checks and balances to make certain that one branch of government would not be able to overstep its bounds because the other two branches were designed to rein in such abuses of power. The executive branch carries out and enforces the laws; the legislative branch writes the laws; and the judicial branch interprets the laws and ensures their fidelity to the Constitution.
In addition to the checks and balances exercised between branches, there are checks and balances between the people and government, between the amateur and the professional, between the lay person and the politician.
In the judicial branch, when a defendant is on trial, a judge presides. The judge is a professional. A federal judge is appointed primarily on the basis of his/her resume. Prosecutors and defenders, also professionals, play a large role in how a trial plays out. The case, however, is not decided by any of the professionals. Conviction or acquittal rests in the hands of the twelve amateurs that constitute the jury.
The executive branch should be led by a professional. A track record or resume should clearly indicate an executive’s leadership and administrative acumen. The professional exective carries out the laws.
How do the people make sure that the laws are fair to them? People elect legislative representatives from amongst themselves to convene together for the making of laws. Our nation’s founders envisioned these as amateurs. They weren’t intended to stay in office for very long. They weren’t intended to become life-long professional politicians, especially not in the U.S. House of Representatives, where terms only last two years. It was thought that ordinary citizens would run for election to Congress, would spend a short season there, if elected, and would return to their place in the private sector after spending that short season in office representing the citizens of their districts. In Ohio, there are only three basic criteria for eligibility to be elected to Congress: eligibility to vote (a citizen in good standing); residence (Ohio is the state of residence); and age (at least 25 for the U.S. House of Representatives and at least 30 for the U.S. Senate). The MSM is often guilty of promoting additional criteria to be considered in selecting legislators (such as citing “experience,” or “familiarity with the law”) that are at cross-purposes with those of the framers of the Constitution. Because the MSM puts too much premium on “experience,” we have too many career politicians who have become insiders more beholden to special interests than to constituents. Regular legislative turnover would better ensure that lawmakers are in touch with the people, as they have not been too far removed in time and space from the mainstream population of their districts. The longer a lawmaker serves, the more time lapses since he or she had circulated in the mainstream, and the more the Beltway insulates them and isolates them from the pressing everyday concerns of voters. Because the MSM puts too much premium on “familiarity with the law,” we have too many lawyers in the legislative branch who have created too many perks and opportunities for their own professions at the expense of others. Ideally, our legislature would look like a cross-section of our population.
That’s why I think the pollsters asking questions about a candidate’s compatibility with the voters are among the best questions to ask in legislative races.
I endorse Josh Mandel for U.S. Senate.
In the race for President, though, the bar is set much higher. I reject high unemployment as the new normal. I reject a $16 trillion debt as the new normal. I reject a nuclear Iran as the new normal. I reject redistribution of wealth as the new normal. I reject dead diplomats and embassies ablaze as the new normal. I reject identity politics (us vs. them) as the new normal. For these reasons, I must reject President Obama’s bid for a second term.
It does not matter to me that Mitt Romney is far higher up the income scale from me than Barack Obama is. It does not matter to me that I don’t follow equestrian sporting events, like Romney does. It does not matter to me that I do fill out March Madness brackets, like Barack Obama does. I don’t need a POTUS who is just like me. I want a professional, not an amateur. I need a leader. I want an American turnaround. Show me the candidate that has the strongest resume as a turnaround artist. Show me who has a track record of success as a leader. At the RNC, Ann Romney, someone who should know, promised me, “This man [Mitt Romney] will not fail.” Obama already has failed. The choice could not be more clear. Mitt Romney is the candidate I want to be POTUS next January.