|
|
|
When Did Honesty Become Optional?
Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
Read More...
Another Reason Why Going Negative Is a Bad Thing
Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
Unless you are an inside-the-beltway campaign consultant or you have been living an oblivious life, you most likely stand with the rest of the American electorate in being increasingly disgusted with the negative tone that the Republican candidates for President have employed over the last few months. The opportunity for the GOP candidates to coalesce behind a common goal – the “de-transformation of the United States of America” – is slowly passing. The opportunity for them to embrace a teachable moment so as to explain, in layman’s terms, why the country has suffered under the current administration’s policies, and why their proposed platforms bring relief to individuals and business owners across the political ideological divide, is slowly fading into the history books as “what could have been.” It doesn’t have to be this way, but, then, the proprietary minions of the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment don’t much care for the notions of we “fly-over” types. They know all about campaign strategy. Just ask them. If avoiding the alienation of the electorate’s goodwill wasn’t enough of a reason not to go so personally and caustically negative, there is the notion that in doing so a great amount of damage would be done to each of the candidates, so much so – and for no other reason than to win the nomination at all cost – that the Obama campaign would be handed a full arsenal of negative talking-point ammunition for the General Election campaign. Armed with this free opposition research, already tested for its maximum destructive potency, and close to a $1 billion campaign war chest, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Roberts Gibbs could get a mentally challenged three-toed tree sloth elected over the Republican challenger.
Read More...
How About Letting Us Make Our Own Choices
Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
On a stage adorned with American flags and amid the glitter of Las Vegas, Donald Trump, who had been threatening a third party run for the presidency, revealed he is endorsing Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Earlier in the day it had been rumored that ‘The Donald’ would be endorsing New Gingrich but that turned out to be false. Whether ‘The Donald’s’ gurus in media attention planned the “mistake” we will probably never know. A more valid question is this. Why should we care who Donald Trump endorses for President? To say that ‘The Donald’ has a penchant for attracting the white-hot lights of media attention would be to state the blatantly obvious. For months Mr. Trump advanced the idea that he might enter the race for the presidency but whenever pushed to declare “yea” or “ney” alluded to the ridiculous notion that his contract with NBC wouldn’t “allow” him to run...equal time restrictions, don’t you know. Right. And if you believe that...well, “you’re fired!” Make no mistake; I am not taking issue with ‘The Donald’ for his unique ability to captivate the media. More power to him. I am taking issue with the mainstream media and those swayed by celebrity endorsements of political figures for even caring.
Read More...
There’s a Difference Between Vetting & Smearing
Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
Call it wishful thinking. Call it expecting the campaigns to honor what the American people have been demanding for several election cycles. Call it what you will, but I admit, I am one of the life-long Conservatives and Republicans who finds the attack ad blitz being perpetrated by our GOP presidential candidates against one another over-the top and, quite frankly, embarrassing. It is one thing to illuminate an opponent’s past record, even his past behavior where it applies to his ability to execute elected office, but it is quite another to engage in the slash-and-burn, win-at-all-cost political tactics of the Progressive Left. We, as Conservatives and as Republicans are better than that...we have to be. The recent exchanges between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich about lobbying, taxes, who is more Conservative than who, etc., serve as a perfect example of destruction (read: negative) politics. Truth be told, aside from the fact that we now know Newt Gingrich had a rider in his consulting contract with Freddie Mac that prohibited him – or any of his team – from lobbying, and aside from the fact that we now know venture capitalist Mitt Romney is wealthy and pays the least amount of taxes legally possible, what did we learn from any point brought up by either candidate that weighed heavily on the negative?
Read More...
|
|
|
|
|
|
