BloggeRhythms

Apparently, a political trend’s taking place that makes some sense for a change.

 

Reid Wilson of The Washington Post wrote an article titled, “In big races, debates few and far between.”

 

He explains that, “Across the country, in some of the most competitive contests for Senate seats and governorships and some of the least, incumbent office-holders are refusing to meet their opponents in front of television cameras.”

 

And that makes perfect sense to me because I’ve always thought that debates are a waste of time. While the media generally tips the scales to favor liberal agendas, biased commentators strive to ask questions deliberately designed to bait and trap opponents into subjects where they’re most vulnerable.

 

Even worse is that in the short time span of a debate, opponents can present whatever picture of themselves they choose at the moment, which really doesn’t mean very much at all. The things that count are their actual performance to date, as historically documented, including hard information such as their past voting records and prior stances on subjects voters are most concerned about or interested in.

 

A reader’s comments following the article made the point perfectly, as follows: “A one hour debate does not fully identify or qualify them as viable candidate for the office. Obama is a classic example of why people should look into their past and see if their speeches match past voting records and ideology. Never ever believe what they say but do believe in what they have done.”

 

A vivid confirmation of politician’s actions being far more important than their words appeared in an item on CBSNews.com today, which says, “President Obama acknowledged that the U.S. underestimated the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also called ISIL) and overestimated the ability of the Iraqi military to fend off the militant group in an interview that will air Sunday on 60 Minutes.”

 

However, the incumbent’s rhetorical acknowledgement of the ISIS/ISIL uprising really doesn’t concur with what actually happened at all.

 

It’s far more likely that when pulling out al the U.S. troops from Iraq as promised, there was no thought given to the overall situation or vacuum created whatsoever. Because the story presented to the public was that once Bin Laden was dead, the Middle-East problems were over, and there was nothing further to worry about.

 

But now that the growing perils and billions in costs keep amassing, due to the horrendous mistakes in Iraq and Syria made by the current administration, the incumbent still uses the same, time-tested, rationalization. All his speeches and explanations boil down to the key words claiming all of the problems are still “W” Bush’s fault, and always were.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios