PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BELIEVABILITY

Rachael Maddow held consecutive interviews with three Democratic presidential candidates. After the repeated RNC controlled exposure to Republican candidates, the simple honesty of the show was like a big breath of fresh air. For example, one candidate made the point that the opposition candidates, all acting like tough guys, repeatedly say they would send troops to fight and “brutally crush” ISIS, send troops to the Middle East, etc., but pointed out that not one of them said where the troops would come from or who was going to pay for it. I heard, for the first time, one of the candidates interviewed tie our national debt to the unpaid Iraqi war. Usually, they condemn the Iraqi War as a terrible mistake, but avoid mentioning the economic impact that war had in the United States. We as a country are war weary, and few wants to continue fighting and certainly do not want to escalate our participation in an escalated war. One of the candidates chose to face the politically sensitive issue of reinstating a draft, which he said he would not do. They all saw the wisdom of and fully supported Presidents Obama’s current strategy. Sometimes it is difficult to determine why discussions such as these rings true and why the Republican debates seemed so contrived and manipulated and frankly, unbelievable. Perhaps, it was in the inclusiveness of the Maddow led the discussion that lent reality to discussions. Although not strictly true, I certainly had a feeling the candidates had the freedom to thrash out the topics they choose to discuss, which gave a sense of completeness to the discussion. Even though Maddow and here advisors formulated the questions in a way that allowed the discussants the freedom to choose not to do so, all three volunteered to face and not avoided politically sensitive areas. All of this makes them believable. I wish all of the American people would watch the videos of the entire discussion but know that will never happen. Their TV and radio dials are set to Fox News or other radical hate-filled talk radio. These people live in a world of self-imposed censorship that prevents them from applying reason or even from having rational thoughts. Look at Republican front-runner Ben Carlson’s story. By its self, it is inexplicable and would not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I have yet to hear a politician, a preacher, or anyone else say they had an epiphany that do not tell the same story Ben Carlson tells of how they came to understand the “God” and welcome him into their hearts not associated with a terrible heartbreaking life of drug addiction or crime or depravity. They are rare enough, but truly heartbreaking stories of this nature to make them sound believable. For the politician, this is clearly a way of gathering the votes of other evangelical liars, who see this as the most powerful of all arguments. On the negative side of this and in proof of the power of the argument, “I can prove I believe in God because I changed my life” argument, name one politician who will say they do not believe in “God” and makes up a silly story to prove what he or she says. We can find a rare author who will do this but never a politician. As a test of the truth of this belief, try to find one news commentary, either right or left wing, you can quote that said Ben Carlson is a liar. I am not challenging you to find the ones who imply this but the ones who have written it. You can even include Facebook, in your search. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated