So I'll just start out by saying that I am quite happy about the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few days ago. Not only will it help deter some of the nasty stuff going through congress right now, but it also proves that when the people want to say something, they can. They aren't locked in to a certain procedure. They will vote for what they really want. And that's a staple of American government.
I am however, saddened by the media coverage of the whole thing. I feel like the only thing I see from just about any news source is that Coakley lost because she ran a poorly funded, under-advertised campaign. Ummm... Did anyone consider the idea that MAYBE Mr. Brown stood for what the people wanted and Coakley didn't; MAYBE the people didn't feel like she would be a good representative of their ideals in the capital.
I kind of feel like I'm stating the obvious, that the people of Massachusetts picked Scott Brown for senate because he would properly represent them in the senate, but nobody seems to be saying that, so maybe I'm not. This shouldn't be a revolutionary idea, but if someone has only been paying attention to the mainstream media, it might be.
Not that money running the government is anything new, but it's still disheartening to see such poor coverage. Just my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment