The ommissions of the Presidential candidates

In my daily search for news on the Presidential candidates and issues that the next President will be dealing with I have run into a recent report that has disturbing implications. We have all heard the saying that politicians are not to be trusted. That our elected officials will say virtually anything to get elected. Even most recently we have seen some candidates that have said nothing and every side of an issue all on the same question. But it is far worse than that.

I am referring to the Presidential Political Courage Test, conducted by Project Vote Smart. This study viewed 10 years of various political candidates, in both political parties. And the conclusion was that.

“55 percent of presidential candidates were willing to expose their positions on issues of obvious concern to citizens. This represented an 8 percent decline in the candidates' willingness to provide such crucial information to citizens since 2004. This also demonstrated the candidates' increasing interest in controlling the public's access to information regarding their intentions on issues.”

Think about that. 45% of the candidates don’t want the public to know what they believe about the issues that will affect the nation. That almost half of all the candidates have hidden what they really want to do, if elected, at a time where some of the most critical decisions facing America are on the table. In effect that we are being told lies of omission to our faces, with a smile and a soundbite.

Let me be more specific. Of the candidates that are currently running for President, that the major news media follows, only 3 are willing to openly state where they stand. Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel. That’s it. And only one of these 3 is a serious potential Presidential candidate, though a long-shot I wouldn’t bet on.

Now I will say that the study has some fluff in it. Announced Presidential candidates such as Emperor Caesar (no joke, and that’s a Democrat no less) are hardly serious entries. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton (Democrat), Rudy Giuliani (Republican), Duncan Hunter (Republican), Dennis J. Kucinich (Democrat), John McCain (Republican), Barack Obama (Democrat), and Bill Richardson (Democrat) are serious and all were against being open with their positions being told to the public.

Given the failures of the report, one thing is clear. This is unacceptable. Any serious candidate must be able to declare EXACTLY what they stand for and how their term as President of the United States would be a benefit to the citizens of the nation. Anything less is a two-faced, soundbite laden, cheap attempt to swindle votes from well meaning but less than informed citizens. This is the effective equivalent of giving the people sand to drink and no other option.

What else would you call it when candidates go to a debate one week and get caught obviously not answering a critical issue that affects all Americans in one way or another, then after a week or 2 of practice with advisors and constantly shifting views goes onto the next debate and makes a firm stand. That’s not being forthright. That’s finding out what boat is sinking and jumping away from it, for the mere sake of winning.

I would have more respect and would consider voting for a candidate that has a position and can make a real argument why it’s in my best interest. Anything less is not worthy of being President. And while Senator Clinton may have been the most noted for her obvious doubletalk, candidates in both parties fail to do more than make 15 second soundbites for major news media. Honestly I feel they have all let the American people down.

When it comes down to it, this election will be a race of what is the least horrible choice. The problem with that is that we the people will still be left with a miserable, ineffective, President that will not promote the best interest for ALL the nation.

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am A contributing author.**