FLIP-FLOPs: Do the Presidential Candidates Rate a "MIRANDA" Warning?
By Fred Cederholm
Created Jun 23 2008 - 2:18pm
I've been thinking about flip-flops. Actually I've been thinking about the
55 words of the Miranda warning, Election 2008, the candidates, being
silent, the court of public opinion, attorney(s), and the government
picking
up the tab. The 1963 court case of Miranda vs. Arizona ultimately gave
rise
to the ever-pervasive Miranda warning which advises individuals who are
being arrested of their rights. Those 55 words so often pop up in the TV
dramas that the American public has committed them to memory.
You see as the Election 2008 Presidential Campaign continues to unwind; it
also appears that the reading of these rights should be done to our
political candidates as well. This is shaping up to be a particularly
aggressive slug fest. In the 2004 election, "flip-flops" entered our
lexicon
as a derogatory *****sment of what a candidate was doing. They said one
thing, made promises, and divulged strategies only to change their minds
and
recant on the earlier positions. This is nothing new! The advent of the
internet and proliferation of web blogs, chat rooms, and netizen
monitoring
has picked up the slack in news coverage and analysis by the traditional
media forums. It is harder and harder to deny statements, positions, and
policy declarations when clips of them are so readily available (in
perpetuity) on the net. Please read on...
In recent weeks I've noted an escalation in blog commentaries, pseudo news
stories, and emails which are tra****ng one presidential candidate --- or
the
other: 100 reasons to NOT vote for., "X" plans to greatly increase taxes
and
oppressive government regulation, "Y" has sold out to special interests
and
will sell out the country, the "wars" in Afghanistan or Iraq) will be
abruptly ended (OR continue indefinitely) to the detriment of our entire
way
of life. Even if completely fabricated and untrue, once out there; a
candidate must commit valuable time and resources to counter, deny, or
refute such points.
Whoever "wins" the November election, effectively "loses!" The victor
faces
diplomatic, military, economic, financial, energy, social, AND
philosophical
powder kegs - any one of which could prove devastating to our system(s).
There are NO simple, quick, and painless fixes. We need REAL leader****p,
but
there will be a REAL temptation to resort to the security of the points of
the Miranda warning.
You have the right to remain silent: What candidate has ever NOT regretted
saying "something?" Even if a comment (or word choice) was sincerely and
innocently made, there is safety in resorting only to clichés, platitudes,
and "pabulum." We've already experienced "great" rhetoric --- saying
nothing!
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law: Here
the court of public opinion of the electorate will be the jury come
November. Despite careful vetting of words, policies, and statements
geared
to appeal to the respective core party bases; mistakes will be made. These
will require costly backtracking and/ or damage control - thus keeping the
candidates from being honest and forthright with US/us. This does a major
disservice to the electorate and we deserve far better than this.
You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney
present
during any questioning: What candidate does NOT already have an army of
attorneys, pollsters, political consultants, or spinmeisters? These were
all
"needed" to get the current party frontrunners to the point where they (in
theory) have sewed up their respective nominations BEFORE their party's
conventions. One wonders if the messages being hawked (or planned to be
hawked) are truly those of the candidates, or they are the consensus of
respective campaign teams as to what the public wants to hear, are
essential
in firing up the party base, and are ultimately essential to winning the
November Election?
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government
expense: If the candidate's team does NOT feel they can raise the
necessary
bucks from the party faithful, the lobbyists, the PACs, and the special
interests; they can agree to abide by the constraints of accepting Federal
Election Monies and suck in Uncle $ugar's cash. This will effectively
limit
their final run for the White House to $100 MILLION per major party.
Upwards
to a HALF a BILLION was spent on the primaries!
I hope and pray the 2008 candidates don't resort to the confines and
protections of the Miranda warning. This would be a disservice to the
functioning of a real horserace election. A campaign limited to "muted"
debates and silent posters featuring perfect hair, pearly smiles, and
postcard families; just isn't going to cut it.
I'm Fred Cederholm and I've been thinking. You should be thinking, too.
Copyright 2008 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.
_______
exeterfred
asklet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
