Two things. First, you don’t need to be part of the political machine to have a working understanding of what has been happening in politics. Every SC decision is publicly announced, new laws are published, there’s the congressional record, the budget is published, etc. There is a massive amount of information available to anyone who wants to understand what our government is doing.
Second, if you’re ill informed, how can you even say that you know where the country is headed to put it “back on course”? How can you help craft legislation to fix the country when you don’t know a damn thing about the legislative process?
More to the point, do you think it is something government or elected officials can do, absent measures as thoroughgoing and socially totalitarian as the moral policing of the Iranian Revolution?
Obama made a mistake when he cut taxes. He did not raise them as right wingers pretend. But our taxes are at very low levels. If we are to deal as adults with the deficits, taxes will have to be raised. Taxes are not the problem at all.
The Repubs grow the government every time they get in. The hugely increase the deficit giving as much money to their friends as is possible. Then when they get voted out, they suddenly scream about deficits, the same deficits they caused. Now the Dems are bad because their attempts to rein in the deficits will be rejected by those who caused it. Any attempts that will actually work are rejected by filibuster. It is not hard to make people think the government is ineffective if you make it that way.
Assuming that’s true, “more eloquent” does not mean “better informed.”
She can talk – unlike, say, Alvin Greene, her speech is cadenced appropriately, measured and direct. But this may create a false sense of competency. A slow, stumbling speaker may be a brilliant policy wonk; a captivating speaker may be spewing bullshit.
Granted, there’s a strong correlation between clear concise speech and clarity of intellect, but as Ms. O’Donnell is showing us, correlation does not equal proof.
In a just world, which Tea Party candidate would the fair & balanced mainstream media be focusing their attentions on instead?
Who really stands out for you as a shining star of the movement: a fitting ambassador for all the intelligent, successful, not-at-all-racist people that ostensibly comprise the majority of the Tea Party?
I’ve said before that I’m not particularly a fan of O’Donnell. I just get tired of the over-the-top and frequently hypocritical comments about her around here, and to me, if people are going to point and laugh over her use of big words, then it’s legitimate to point to their relative silence when it comes to a candidate of their own who was not only much less eloquent but had far less of an idea what she would try to do once she got into office.
So in other words, I’m attacking the unfair and untrue things said about O’Donnell, and not defending her candidacy itself.