NOT SURE

   The protracted Presidential election process is like a window into American character. What are we seeing?

    From this view I see the case that big money is so powerful it has created an industry, electioneering and it is at odds with good government. Getting elected in America has almost no connection with governing in America. They are different orbits, different universes. What it takes to get elected has almost no connection with what it takes to govern. In fact so much effort is spent on raising funds it should raise flags the system is at least out of kilter if not broken.  

      A member of the US House of Representatives will spend as much if not more time raising money for re-election than she or he spends on doing the people's work.  Members of the Senate are also trapped, but with 6 year terms, they can attend to governing and legislating. Maybe it's time to change house terms to 4 years, if we can't reform campaign spending. 

    This election window also exposes the damnable situation in which the Republican party finds itself. The evangelical, right wing and loony fringes control the nominating process and have driven the party to being out of touch with the majority of working Americans. Real Republicans are forced to play to the right and still they find themselves trailing vanity candidate Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson who is so unqualified to be a President he belongs in the Sarah Palin zoo.

    It also exposes the travesty of making New Hampshire and Iowa important. Those two states have long eclipsed their real  value and role. It is not the fault of New Hampshire and Iowa. The fault is with the media and the parties.

    Campaign reporting has digressed to numbers and carnival. It is more about the process, the horse race and personality than substance. Journalism has been dumped for entertainment, hype and gotcha. True, there is a refining process in being exposed to 24 hour coverage and examination but it has gotten so silly as to be almost pointless. Why should performance in Iowa and New Hampshire dictate a candidates true viability everywhere else?  It is because the system is so top heavy with money and contribution momentum and because the media has top loaded those two states and their own process in the hype circus that life is imitating bad art.

     The best chance at a cure is old advice.  Limit campaign spending.  Shorten the campaign cycle. Make it impossible for candidates to transport their war chest to any personal use. Get rid of PACs. For their part the media needs  a serious season of self evaluation and analysis. News managers need to realize the point of the campaign is not to build ratings, sell advertising, aggrandize careers, but to examine true and relevant issues and the women and men who are asking to be hired by the public.

WHY NOT RELEVANT COVERAGE? & TREES AT SUNSET

IT IS ABOUT MORE THAN A HORSE RACE
Election night was as much fun as Christmas morning. I was always amped up by the prospect of our hours long unscripted coverage, both on radio and for many years on TV. I'm a political junkie, as you might expect after decades of journalism covering campaigns for school boards to the White House. So, with that as prelude--
WHY CAN'T WE GET BETTER COVERAGE?
We don't need more. It seems wall to wall now, but
the focus is almost exclusively on the horse race.
Oh, we have marvelous polls and data sets and awe inspiring graphic displays, but somehow it misses the point.
Ultimately the voter will decide, regardless of how
pollsters handicap or predicatively prophesize.
Don't you think we need better analysis of how
these candidates will behave as Chief Executive and
Commander in Chief?  I'd rather know how they
propose to handle the latest Iranian saber rattling and what will they do, specifically, rather than how much money
they've raised, and what their strategy is to win New Hampshire.
We have a disconnect.  There is the business, and a sleazy one it is, of getting elected.  Then there is governance.
Our media attention is almost exclusively on the  business of
campaigning, which is an important story, but not as
important as understanding who these people are.
What about their personality and beliefs?  How might they affect political decisions?  What is their competence in 
dealing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  How much do they know about the American Intelligence Community?
What do they really know of American history?
What do they know of previous Presidents?
Do they understand how government bureaus operate, or Weber's laws of bureaucracy?  How effective are they at managing?  Can they manage a budget?  Do they know how to hold people accountable?
 Can they, measure outcomes or articulate a vision? How do they make decisions? What experience do they have at 
working with varied special interests? Etc, etc.
I'd much rather see a few months of microscopic 
examination of character, decision making, experience, 
personality, philosophy, than canned sound bites
in predictable debate scenarios where everyone, even the panel is playing to the camera, or reportage about 
the horse race that has all the hype and speculation
of a Super Bowl lead up.
Maybe the current crop of reporters have seen too much
American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
Oh how I miss Tom Petit, Herb Kaplow, Douglas Kiker, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite,  Bob Clark, John Chancellor, Marvin Kalb, Cassie Mackin, Dan Rather, Lynn Sherr, David Broder, Tom Wicker, Joseph Alsop, Johnny Apple, Richard Reeves, Walter Mears, Adam Clymer, I.F. Stone, Scotty Reston, Bill Bradley, etc, etc, etc. 
DAYBOOK

TREES AT SUNSET

This series captures the texture and

magic of watching the sun dance behind

a tree in wine country.

My English uncle told me, when a boy, this is 

the time of evening of myths, legends, visions,

dreams, fairies and goblins.

See you down the trail.