I want to shout out — to total strangers if necessary — “Hey, the election’s over.” Of course, I’m viewing this political theater through the eyes of someone who’s pleased with the results.
Obama got re-elected, gaining about 125 more electoral votes than his opponent, Mitt Romney. Yet, bloggers, those who spend half their lives writing comments online, usually on Facebook, continue the assault.
Let me explain:
I believe few will disagree that this was by far the foulest, most mud-slinging election in memory, perhaps in history. Imagine grownups throwing big bucks into campaigns while enriching the media, mostly TV stations, to damn the opposition.
Quite frequently, we’d see anti-Heather Wilson spots on TV, explaining to us, the gullible public, that “Heather Wilson is wrong for New Mexico.” And often, with the damning tones still resonating, the Wilson camp slams Martin Heinrich.
Negative ads work. But don’t they also neutralize one another? Is it possible the public becomes so weary and wary that they vote for no one? Possibly they’ll skip voting for either candidate, while voting for the others on the ballots — or they might stay away from the polls altogether.
A syndicated columnist, Ruben Navarrette, used a lot of ink in urging voters simply to skip the presidential spots but to go ahead and vote for others on the slate.
These adults, who spent billions of dollars knocking their opponents, possibly nullify one another. Does the “clean” campaigner feel compelled to change the advertising tack in order to regain some ground?
The billions candidates spent this round blasting the opposition could have gone for the building of schools, hospitals, homeless shelters — roads, buildings and setting up programs that could do much good.
But instead, the television media seem to have become the main beneficiaries of the ad revenue.
So, those of us treated to an onslaught of TV spots accusing others of atrocities, can understand why politics in general ranks so low in the public’s admirability quotient. Here are some recent figures, provided by credible sources, that underscore the public’s lack of esteem for congress, for example:
CNN shows a 17 percent approval rate for congress; CBS News/NY Times: 15 percent; NPR: 16 percent; and Gallup: 21 percent.
How many employees would remain on the job with such dismal rankings? Remember, congress comprises a lot of grownups who have mastered the filibuster, who often vote strictly along party lines and who come back to their home state to campaign against Washington, telling of their own noble efforts to put the taxpayer first.
Obama’s victory speech alluded to “working across the aisle,” bipartisan fashion. John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house, also made some conciliatory comments. But will these powerful politicians really ever give up their zeal for supporting their particular party by obstructing whatever their opponents want? Will they really work for solutions to the economy, to joblessness, to remediating the things that have earned them the justifiable title of a do-nothing congress?
Looking at Facebook blogs, we still see the rants of those who fault Obama’s pigment; the comment sections of online newspapers, as well as social media groups, continue to insist Obama was born in Kenya, that he’s a Muslim, a socialist, and with a mustache, looks like Hitler.
The rants of some insist “Obama’s out to destroy the country.” Do we really believe Obama awoke one morning to declare, “Now that I have four more years, I think I’ll finish destroying the country”?
Imagine how much we could accomplish as a nation if the primary motivation for politicians actions and votes wasn’t merely to counter those of someone of a different political party. I’m sure voters lust for the kind of leadership that benefits the public in general, not just the benefactors of whatever pork office-holders can bring home from Washington — or Santa Fe.
To her credit, Heather Wilson, a Republican who ran for the U.S. Senate against Martin Heinrich, started softening her TV commercials as Election Day dawned. To be sure, she approved of a host of spots that denigrated Heinrich, but on occasion, her staff ran commercials showing the sweet, homey, motherly side of the seasoned politician.
In her living room, we saw a portrait of a serviceman, cute knickknacks on the mantle, lace curtains on the windows, and a well-worn sofa. A bit too “staged”?
Perhaps. But even so, it was refreshing to see a TV spot whose sole message wasn’t to demonize the opponent.
• • •
“Slaughter” is the most complimentary word I can find to describe the planned coyote shoot in Los Lunas, sponsored by an outfit called Gunhawk Firearms.
Even though it’s not illegal, it’s immoral. The shop has already signed up 90 participants who will compete for a fancy rifle, the prize for providing the most coyote carcasses.
Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments for and against Second Amendment rights, and yes, we’re also aware that coyotes are predators that kill cattle.
Please don’t construe this as an anti-hunting tirade. I respect the right of licensed, qualified people to hunt deer, elk and other wildlife. That kind of hunting at least provides food and continues a long-standing tradition.
But as for the wholesale shooting of coyotes, well, I side with those who oppose the shooterama.
The event will assuredly put Los Lunas on the map, but aren’t there more humane ways of getting attention, short of making coyotes simple moving targets?