Lowest Common Denominator

[Guest]

In an interview on TV this morning, a panel was discussing how the presidential campaign has become nothing more than a backward-looking, mean-spirited, tit-for-tat exchange of criticisms between the candidates. Both the conservative and liberal members of the panel berated the idea that the electorate would be forced to decide who to vote for without either candidate ever laying out his view, his plan, for addressing the issues facing the country. With the massive fiscal problems facing the country, healthcare problems, a failing education system, an infrastructure that is aging and falling apart, unaffordable entitlement programs, fragile foreign policy, even the takeover of our government by special interests--none of that is being addressed by either candidate. No plans are set forth, discussed or debated. No detail of the very general campaign statements is ever provided, never demanded by the public. Only denouncements and personal criticism of the candidates for each other.

One of the panelists, Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, opined that the campaign is unlikely to change because the candidates are simply appealing to the "lowest common denominator" among the electorate. They both are feeding the public the meaningless, backward-looking, word parsing, number manipulating, misleading messages that the public apparently wants to hear. It's pretty clear that the electorate, both the political base voters left and right, as well as the small percentage that's undecided, are willing to permit the candidates to continue this bloviating, vitriolic diatribe.

I would propose that this forum not become "the lowest common denominator". There's nothing wrong with supporting one candidate or the other. But to continue personal attacks, backward-looking criticism, or simply repeating the same narrow, planless, often inaccurate, misleading statements made by partisan politicians or partisan media does none of us any good in understanding the issues and what our realistic choices are for addressing them.

I for one will refuse to be part of the lowest common denominator. I hope this forum can rise above that level as well.

[Guest]

Commendable but improbable.

[Guest]

Good post VK and I do hope others here will accept the challenge.

Some won't because they are either not allowed to depart the task assigned to them or are unable to understand there is another view.

btk

[Guest]

Hear, Hear !!:beer3:

[Guest]

As I posted yesterday, I admire your patience and willingness to try to insert reason into this forum. The reason, I believe, for your clarity and good judgement, lay with the fact you are independent and don't fall prey to the ridiculous rhetoric of the two wings. Good for you, but doubt your integrity will take hold.

[Guest]

In an interview on TV this morning, a panel was discussing how the presidential campaign has become nothing more than a backward-looking, mean-spirited, tit-for-tat exchange of criticisms between the candidates. Both the conservative and liberal members of the panel berated the idea that the electorate would be forced to decide who to vote for without either candidate ever laying out his view, his plan, for addressing the issues facing the country. With the massive fiscal problems facing the country, healthcare problems, a failing education system, an infrastructure that is aging and falling apart, unaffordable entitlement programs, fragile foreign policy, even the takeover of our government by special interests--none of that is being addressed by either candidate. No plans are set forth, discussed or debated. No detail of the very general campaign statements is ever provided, never demanded by the public. Only denouncements and personal criticism of the candidates for each other.

One of the panelists, Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, opined that the campaign is unlikely to change because the candidates are simply appealing to the "lowest common denominator" among the electorate. They both are feeding the public the meaningless, backward-looking, word parsing, number manipulating, misleading messages that the public apparently wants to hear. It's pretty clear that the electorate, both the political base voters left and right, as well as the small percentage that's undecided, are willing to permit the candidates to continue this bloviating, vitriolic diatribe.

I would propose that this forum not become "the lowest common denominator". There's nothing wrong with supporting one candidate or the other. But to continue personal attacks, backward-looking criticism, or simply repeating the same narrow, planless, often inaccurate, misleading statements made by partisan politicians or partisan media does none of us any good in understanding the issues and what our realistic choices are for addressing them.

I for one will refuse to be part of the lowest common denominator. I hope this forum can rise above that level as well.

Carl Bernstein is smarter than to miss the point that the campaigns are aimed squarely and constantly with what will fit in the 30-Second Soundbite!

I think he purposely missed that point, in order to blame the electorate instead of the media that makes its living on the 30-second soundbite!

[Guest]

Is it coincidence that this call for civility coming from the left arrives at a time when Obama is
backtracking faster than the roadrunner regarding his comments last Friday in Roanoake.

I don't ever recall once where Romney launched a vile attak on Obama. In fact he is being criticized by Republicans for not being more aggressive in responding such as those from "Bainer's"

However I did e-mail the next vice president of these United States with the same message suggested by the original poster.

What we all are really waiting for are the presidential debates following the candidates respective conventions.

[Guest]

Is it coincidence that this call for civility coming from the left arrives at a time when Obama is
backtracking faster than the roadrunner regarding his comments last Friday in Roanoake.

I don't ever recall once where Romney launched a vile attak on Obama. In fact he is being criticized by Republicans for not being more aggressive in responding such as those from "Bainer's"

However I did e-mail the next vice president of these United States with the same message suggested by the original poster.

What we all are really waiting for are the presidential debates following the candidates respective conventions.

It is instructive that someone who consistently comes from the far right would dismiss a call for civility from someone who has consistently demonstrated he is independent, and even leaning Romney, as coming from a "liberal". You wing nuts just don't get it, and you probably never will.

[Guest]

It is instructive that someone who consistently comes from the far right would dismiss a call for civility from someone who has consistently demonstrated he is independent, and even leaning Romney, as coming from a "liberal". You wing nuts just don't get it, and you probably never will.

Wow old Ed don't hold back! Who is far right? Who is dismissing civility? Who is consistently independent? Who is liberal? and who is a wing nut?

A really surprise attack from you. what gives the heat got to you?

Chill Dude

[Guest]

Wow old Ed don't hold back! Who is far right? Who is dismissing civility? Who is consistently independent? Who is liberal? and who is a wing nut?

A really surprise attack from you. what gives the heat got to you?

Chill Dude

Rubi, I have in the past consistently admired your takes, but lately you seem to be falling into the right wing rhetoric that blindly follows the party line.

[Guest]

Describing the President as the socialist he is is probably slipping to the "lowest common denominator" in the eyes of our liberal elite here.

How does a "free market" supporter compromise with a Marxist?

Being sweet won't save our republic.

[Guest]

Describing the President as the socialist he is is probably slipping to the "lowest common denominator" in the eyes of our liberal elite here.

How does a "free market" supporter compromise with a Marxist?

Being sweet won't save our republic.X divided by 0 equals ?

Yep, that's a pretty low denominator. Not surprised though.