January 24, 2007

Political Plain Speak?

I don’t talk about politics on this forum because it seems you have to take one side or the other. You can’t talk philosophically about an issue or a person without everyone trying to identify you as a lefty or a righty. But in recent days I have listened to two politicians who have impressed me with their forthrightness and clarity. The first over CSPAN, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island was speaking to an empty senate chamber where he made a clear, concise argument about President Bush’s handling of the war and the financing of the same. He was to the point and I understood it all.

Last night I watched the democratic response to the Presidents State of the Union address given by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. All I knew about Webb was that he was a pretty good author of several books, two of which I have read. He too was clear and concise in his arguments. I think he must have gotten good marks for his presentation.

My point is: I stopped and listened to two politicians, that I chanced upon in the last couple of weeks, and understood the points they were making. Is this some new political trick? The lack of political smoke and mirror speeches where no Washington roadmap, or lexicon of political speak is needed?

Whatever your political inclination, clearness, truthfulness, and plainspeak in their spoken words would certainly be appreciated by all of us I am sure.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I agree. Politicians should be honest, truthful and, dare I say, transparent with voters. In order to persuade them -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- I launched the Warning Labels On Politicians [ www.warninglabelsonpoliticians.com ] campaign. It calls for 2008 presidential candidates to display warning signs on all campaign literature, advertisements, etc. After all, the public needs to be warned in much the same way as they are warned about other items -- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. -- that are extremely dangerous to their constituents. Check it out!