Saturday, November 17, 2007

Letter to Bill Richardson

Dear Bill:
I was watching you closely last night along with the other candidates. I personally thought your performance was the best yet! You had thoughtful and courageous answers to serious questions and I thought you deserved to be singled out as a candidate that showed rising promise against the bickering and infighting and back biting of the other so called leading candidates.
I was especially alarmed that Hillary Clinton couldn't even give a simple definitive answer to the softball question of whether she preferred pearls or diamonds! In typical Hilliaryspeak she simply answered with no answer "I want them both????" Surely geared to not choosing what she truly wants so as not to alienate the alternate constituent. Is that what we want in a President? I think not.
Your courageous answer about putting human rights before national security was deemed by the talking heads as being a Faux pas. I disagree. If we maintain a firm, unwavering policy of putting human rights first and living by what we preach, it will serve to strengthen our national security not weaken it!. People will no longer react to our two faced policy of preaching one way but doing what is expedient when it seems to serve our purposes. I am not for a weak national security policy, but I do not believe maintaining human rights is mutually exclusive to maintaining a secure and safe nation. When you lie with dogs you inevitably get fleas, so if we expect others to live by our values we surely must demonstrate that our values are not for sale or not compromised by fringe elements who see totalitarianism as the only way to secure some one's warped idea of safety. That logic brought the Germans to their knees in World War II!
You have sound ideas and I believe you are a fresh, untainted alternate to the other candidates. I am perplexed by the media's lack of picking up on anyone but the supposed front runners in after debate commentary. I was sure your performance would have been singled out, if only to comment on how much improved your delivery seemed. To the contrary, after debate commentary is so slanted to the front runners as to almost obscure the possibility of you or any of the non-front runners from having a chance. It is pitiful that we are served so poorly by a media that has no interest in fairness, equal time or equal exposure.
I am sorry for going on but this really disturbs me to think that we as a voting public are not given adequate coverage or thoughtful debate with the fairness that would allow for intelligent choice at the polls.
I am sending you another contribution and I hope your message is given more coverage, because it deserves to be heard.
Thank you for trying,
Ralph Miriello

No comments: