With the race for the Oval Office in its last days we can expect to see the candidates talking themselves up and talking their opponents down. Now to be very honest I have no problem with a political candidate preying on the weaknesses and and character flaws of their opponents. After all, as Harry S Truman would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
However where I have a problem is when candidates intentionally stretch the truth, creatively edit the facts, or simply assume that a false message delivered in the right tone will fool us simpletons into believing what they want us to believe. Yes, I know that it is common practice, but the reality is that at times it is taken to the point that it creates undeserved animosity amongst the electorate toward a particular candidate. Animosity to the point where a candidate's character or personal integrity are called into question based on nothing more than "political spin".
|You tell them Harry|
Really Harry is this the best you can do? " I heard Mitt Romney has not paid tax in the last ten years". The follow up from Harry was even better "It falls upon Governor Romney to prove otherwise by releasing his tax returns"
Frankly if I was a resident of Nevada I would be ashamed to admit that Mr Reid represented my state. This is the same guy that a quick search on the Internet will find hundreds of articles detailing how Harry has somehow managed to increase his net worth from a "paltry" $1.2 Million to the tune of about $11 million during the time he has been a public servant (public servants must be paid very well in Nevada). Interesting as well is the fact that while Harry was claiming that Mr Romney could disprove the allegations of tax evasion simply by making his tax returns public, good old Harry has refused all requests to make his own tax records open to the public. I guess Harry doesn't buy into the old adage, "what's good for the goose, is what's good for the gander".
What's really troubling about this is that it is the lowest form of mud slinging and was allowed under the watchful eyes of the President. All Mr Obama had to do to put an end to it was make one phone call. It speaks volumes about the man that he allowed this (and many would say "encouraged "it ) under his watch. I imagine what we have witnessed here is some of the tricks that Mr Obama learned during his tenure in Chicago style politics, not very Presidential to say the least. But on the other hand , pretty much what one would expect from a man who refers to his opponent as a "bulls^^^ter" in a televised interview. Just the kind of guy a nation wants on the world stage.