A quick note regarding last night's presidential debate in Nashville: once again, the candidates were asked how they might govern differently--i.e. what sacrifices the American people would have to make--in light of the national/international economic crisis. Neither candidate has really answered this question outright...in other words, neither candidate has taken the political risk of "straight talk" about what the government will/can do--what real change can occur--in the midst of this near-depression...
...which begs the question of whether the American public can handle a straight answer to that question. The campaign managers, and arguably the candidates themselves, think not. So they continue to stick to stump promises developed six months ago. What do you think? If one of the candidates gave a big long speech about how hard this economic disaster is going to be, what we'll have to sacrifice, how we'll have to step up and grit our teeth--would we respect and appreciate that as honest leadership, or run the other way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment