As an addition to my post about the lack of fair and balanced critiques of political candidates, I want to mention one more thing. If we want to have integrity, perhaps we should avoid jumping on every single rumor that is circulating about candidates. For instance, there is a rumor that Palin had a library ban books. This assertion has been made without any evidence. Now, Snopes has a page set up showing that while she may have thrown the idea out there, nothing shows she followed up on it. The lack of follow-through here is in line with her lack of follow-through around other controversial issues. Perhaps that is what people should be looking at. If you agree with her beliefs, then she is not a strong choice because she voices opinions without taking much action on most issues. If you disagree with her beliefs, then maybe she’s a good candidate because she does not act, for the most part.
Yes, I get very annoyed when things like “wanted to ban books” becomes “she had a list of books she wanted to ban” which becomes “she banned books.”
Rather than attack someone for what they might do, why not simply look at the record?
This quick-to-believe-anything, quick-to-judge trend makes it apparent why we have had a plethora of lousy leaders. We willfully allow ourselves to be distracted from meaningful issues, lose viable candidates during primary season if they don’t have star power (i.e. ability to reasonably entertain if caught by paparazzi or on late night tv), and drive many potential voters apathetic by the lunacy surrounding election season.
