When you see the candidates put up by the administration and sometimes confirmed by the Senate, you have to wonder does anyone actually look into these guys?
Forget about their political beliefs but when candidate after candidate has questionable issues in their background that indicate they may have been engaged in a racist activity or maybe sexual abuse, why not find someone without those issues?
It seems like they just don't care or at least the administration doesn't.
The explanation is that the qualities they look for are more about loyalty than character and qualifications.
If you have been a loyal member of the party or loyal to the dontard, a nomination is your reward.
Now patronage of this sort has always been a part of politics, although over the years attempts have been made to reduce it. The success of those attempts are obviously limited.
Prior administrations generally tried to present candidates who could survive a background investigation into their character, at least a legitimate one.
That is part of the problem as the explosion of cable news and Internet sources have led to many bogus conspiracy and character accusations.
If you entertain the idea that some prominent democrats ran a sex ring our of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. (they didn't), these accusations seem tame.
It is hard to determine what is valid vs what isn't with all the bogus stuff being tossed about.
There is plenty of fake news, its just not published by the reputable news agencies.
CNN or the New York Times may have an editorial opinion but what they broadcast or publish is consistent with journalistic standards. The same can't be said for many others who express unfounded opinions which have no foundation.
Unfortunately, this is often mistaken for actual news when it isn't.
It creates a kind of smoke screen for the actual issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment