I’m watching primary election returns from Mississippi of all places (not entirely sure why) and I have a question about the campaign.
Is it possible to have at least one presidential candidate who doesn’t envision the whole job as “commander in chief” – with everything else as time allows?
Can we elect someone to lead this country who sees the Secretary of State as a more important cabinet position than the Secretary of War Defense?
I know I’m probably naive, if not outright stupid.
But it’s my blog and I get to do that.
Next up, I want television news programs that explain and analyze important national issues and the positions of the candidates, instead of pouring over piles of trivial crap.
I have a feeling you’ll like this TV news story, however not-appropriate-for-school it is.
It seems a little no-win…we’re basically in a war right now. If candidates don’t prioritize it, it makes it sound like they don’t care about a quick outcome. If they do prioritize it, it leaves less time for education and such.
I kind of like the way Lessig states it in the video here:
http://weblogg-ed.com/2008/blogging-about-politics-lessig-for-congress/
Sometimes, fixing a key problem will provide a strong base from which the other problems can be addressed. (His examples of key problems are alcoholism to an alcoholic and questionable funding to politicians.) I could see education as a key problem to address, although I can see that legislators trump educators, so attempting to clean up political funding might be necessary to address first.