This is for all the uncommitted voters the cable networks round up to be in their focus groups and who say they wish the candidates would be more specific —
If you want details, don’t wait for details to be spoon fed to you through mass media. The candidates’ websites have the details. All you have to do is click and read.
And, to say one nice thing about the McCain campaign, I think their issues page is better designed and more inviting to read than the Obama issues page, which is a bit sterile in contrast. On the other hand, when you get beneath the interface, some of McCain’s content is a bit dated. His “Relief for American Families” section still promotes a summer gas tax holiday, for example. And much of the content is vague. You read that John McCain is going to act decisively to achieve this or that goal, but often the “how” is missing.
On Obama’s site you get how up the wazoo.
- He has bulleted lists.
- He has lots of bulleted lists.
- His bulleted lists have bulleted lists.
So, next time you hear people complain they want more details on how the candidates stand on issues, please email them the URL to this post and tell them they don’t even have to get off their lazy butts to find the details. Just click. Do it for America.
You read that John McCain is going to act decisively to achieve this or that goal, but often the “how†is missing.
I thought he’d already answered that – sit the culprits down and tell them to cut the crap.
What else could be needed?
Good point. I also get pretty sick of people saying they want more details when they wouldn’t know a detail if it bit them in the keister.
I’ve talked to some fence-sitters and to a person the general reaction to my filling-in-the-blanks has been a shrug and a tacit don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts attitude.
It’s a guess, but what seems to be challenging (and somewhat frightening) for them is a basic discomfort with change, a discomfort pretty much across the board among conservatives.
There is a peculiar, but very human tendency for individuals to remain in adverse situations even when given the opportunity to leave them for favorable situations. The general explanation for this tendency is that a situation in which one has survived is literally safer than a situation in which one has never been, and therefore may not be survivable.
You often enough hear news people and pundits claiming that various Democratic candidates don’t give details on their proposals. You heard this during the primaries and now you hear it again. You’ve heard it in past elections too. But Democratic candidates typically have pretty detailed plans on their web sites, often with summaries and also the plan itself. Republicans, OTOH, more usually have glorified talking points, usually hazy on the details and, shall we say, lacking candor on the details of how they pay for things or what they actually want to cut.
The obvious example is McCain’s constant invoking of earmarks, which of course include anti-poverty programs, anti-drug programs, anti-gang programs, programs to help abused women, programs to help education, programs to help our armed service people, etc. He says he wants to cut them out, but doesn’t say what they consist of, because they are usually things people want and agree we should pay for.
I came home, switched on the local news, and almost immediatly heard a story about undecided voters not hearing enough details to make up their minds. I was shouting at the screen, “Just how much detail do you expect in a two minute / one minute debate format?!”
And all of them were saying this in an Obama context – I kinda like the guy, but I don’t have enough details. Gee. I wonder how they liked that debate? Strikes me that the standard Obama answer was “I understand your concern, it’s a tough problem, and here is a brief 6-point program to address it.” McCain’s standard answer seemed to be “I understand your concern, government is broken, my opponent voted the wrong way because he is a poopy head. But I know how to fix it, my friend, I know how.”
Well. John knows how. That certainly beats Obama’s 6-point plan. I can go back to sleep now. I guess Obama could come out with charts and a pointer, but people said that Ross Perot was boring. Where’s the balance, people?
I think Felicity is close to the problem: We need change, but this Obama guy might be too much change. I can’t wrap my head around that, so I must not be getting enough information. Because if you really want more information, it really is a couple of mouse clicks away. It’s a poor excuse.
To pick up on QrazyQat’s comment..#4
McImbecile was whining that Obama earmarked 3 million dollars for an “overhead projector” to be used in a Chicago planetarium. If you were to convert that 3 million dollars onto Iraq expenditure dollars it would equate into about 15 minutes in time. Basically a big poof of money going down the drain..money without a positive return for investment.
I was surprised that McImbecile would cite such a worthy investment in education and science as something to be ridiculed as wasteful. Education is among the only investments to be made that will always return beneficial dividend…even if we can’t quantify the benefit…we know it can’t come back void. How many bunker buster bombs will 3 million dollars buy?…maybe 3! How many cluster bombs?…at least a dozen!
As a child growing up in the New York metropolitan area one of my memorable learning experiences was a school field trip to the Hayden Planetarium..Millions of school children shared that experience, and I’m sure million of Chicago’s school children learned things of value from their planetarium. It irks me to know that McImbecile is so anti-science and anti-education..What a cretin , what a slug.
Swami – 6 – I wonder if McCain even knew it was for a planetarium, in fact for one of the better planetariums in the country. He painted the picture as if it were a piece of office equipment, and who would be nuts enough – except the government – to pay $3 million for an overhead projector.
If he knew it was for a planetarium, and not a $69 piece of office equipment, then it was quite a gamble betting that Obama didn’t know – which he apparently didn’t.