Re: GOP Wins "Lie of the Year" Title

On Dec 26, 6:55 am, "DGDevin" <DGDe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"TPS"  wrote in message


So don't test for intelligence, test for knowledge of the issues and the
candidates.  If you know that Candidate A is in favor of tax breaks for
owners of a pro sports team who want to build a new arena while Candidate
thinks the gazillionaire owners should build their own damn arena, you're
ahead of the really, really smart guy who doesn't bother to read the
That's better, but still not good enough, because you have to put
someone in charge of determining which are THE ISSUES that are
important.  It's quite possible that there's a candidate who supports
your key issue, and you know that s/he (heh) does, but that issue
isn't a big news item.

If we trust individuals or small groups of people to determine whether or
not we go to prison for the rest of our lives (i.e. judges) surely we can
put together a small committee of journalists, jurists, retired politicians
or whoever to pick the top ten election issues of a particular year in a
particular area.  It doesn't have to be perfect, it would just have to get
people to do a little reading on who is running and what their positions on
the major issues are.

The power to choose which questions are under consideration is much
more important than the power to decide on each individual issue.
Once you have framed the debate, you've pretty much won. Politicians
realize this, so a committee like the one suggested will inevitably
become deeply embroiled in political positioning. Then whoever
appoints the "Election Gateway Committee" will appoint people who
agree about the importance of "tax relief" rather than "increasing
federal revenues", or "the right to choose" rather than "right to

Who's more powerful: the person who wins the game, or the person who
makes the rules?