Skip to main content

Trying to accomplish something = a political stunt

Why does it seem that whenever President Obama makes a speech to try and get public opinion on his side to place pressure on Congress to, you know, do their jobs, many on the right side of the political spectrum refer to it as nothing more than a "political stunt"?

Obama: Pushing for immigration reform

GOP: "This is just a political stunt!"


Obama: Fighting for equal pay for women

GOP: "This is nothing more than a political stunt!"


Obama: Wanting to push stricter gun laws

GOP: "Two words - political stunt!"


With the 24-hours news media being what it is, yes, presidents and other politicians attempt to increase the favorability of themselves and their party by speaking our for certain causes. However, why must that be the only reason for a politician to advocate action for a particular cause? Why does it seem inevitable to many that a politician is only seeking to improve his or her favorability, as opposed to actually wanting to do their job and get something done while in office?

Even if 25% of what President Obama says with regard to fair pay for women can be construed as a "political stunt," does that then negate the 75% of him which genuinely wants to put forth such actions, and should that 25% be enough for the opposing side to protest the speech and actions, in order to deny any such actions from taking place?

Politics has always been a combination of show-business and action. Politicians often times get elected, not only for their ideas, but also for their likability. However, it seems that any more, politics is 75% show-business and only 25% action (it may be more like 90 and 10) and the show-business element gets over-utilized in order to prevent action. How nice it would be for these individuals, whom were elected into office by American voters, to put forth such actions that got them their jobs in the first place, as opposed to just talking about what actions shouldn't take place - attempting to place themselves in a better light with certain demographics, as opposed to actually getting anything done.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"