Showing posts with label Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Candidates. Show all posts

February 29, 2016

Best Of The Best

We all know how important voting is so that our voices are heard in the democratic process and we can help shape the direction of this great nation. 

And this is especially the case when it comes to voting for the next President and Commander in Chief of this country. 

A couple of  concerning things though about this election cycle that I am noticing:

People Not Policy - While elections in general always have their share of rambunctious slogans and exaggerated/empty promises, this election seems to be shaping up with a distinct focus on the people running for President (are they trustworthy, do they have good judgement, how much experience do they have, are they decent people) as opposed to what policies and ideas they have for where they would take the country. Certainly, character and integrity are critical in voting for someone for such an important position, but it seems to have sidelined policy from off of the main agenda. Moreover, the inclination to vote for someone based on their race or gender or presumed sympathy towards those also has upended real discussion on where we are and should be headed. Maybe you really like your candidate of choice, but are you fully satisfied (or close to it) that they have a big picture vision for our future and that they telling it like it is or are they sugarcoating to what they think their audience simply wants to hear, or in some cases is it just limited to a single policy thread or maybe little or no cloth for the emperor at all. 

Questioning The Lineup - First it seemed with the election that people did what they always do, which is take sides and argue it out on the sidelines of the cacophony of all the electioneering. People would say, oh, I like this party and this candidate or that one or the other one--and people would debate who is the better choice. But now, this dialogue seems to have changed where many voters seem fed up with many (or even perhaps all) of the candidates. Some seem to be looking for new candidates to magically swoop in and "save the (election) day" or old candidates to show that they have different stripes. I have heard some question whether they will even bother to vote at all like this with all the negative campaigning or from whom they believe will be the ultimate candidates to chose from. Rather than people saying I like this one better for this reason, now I hear many asking which is "the lessor of the (presumed) evils."

Considering the unbelievable power of the President of the U.S. and that we are talking about this for the next 4 or 8 years, it is scary for people to think they may have to somehow settle for less than the greatness that this position demands.

There are still many more months in this election season and things can take a lot of twists and turns, but hopefully the country will work its way to selecting the true best of the best that our candidates have to offer. ;-)

(Note: This is not an endorsement for any candidate or political party.) 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to cgc76)

Share/Save/Bookmark

February 19, 2016

Walls And Bridges

I was really surprised this week when the Pope entered the election fray and made a comment about presidential candidate, Donald Trump, not being a Christian if he is wanting to build walls (on the Mexican border) and not bridges

And then the Trump campaign pointing out that the Vatican City is surrounded by what of all things...a very big wall!

We have a history in the U.S. of separation of Church and State and a First Amendment that codifies this as law. 

To me, unless a candidate is truly criminal, discriminatory, or evil in their conduct, it's not appropriate for a lofty religious figure to publicly question their personal faith like that. 

Further, when it comes to immigration this is not just an issue in America, but all over Europe now with the refugee crisis, and in many other places in the world. 

Of course, we most definitely need to welcome refugees fleeing persecution, conflict, catastrophe, or war. 

But when immigration is principally an economic migration, this is something for each nation to debate and decide for what is best for them.

This is not an endorsement of any candidate or party, but rather an acknowledgement that we shouldn't:

1) Mix religion and politics (and impose undue influence in a sovereign nation's elections)

2) Judge our neighbors faith by valid policy debates

3) Throw stones in glass houses (or walled areas as the case may be).

If building bridges is what is promoted and preferred here then the Pope and Trump should kiss (proverbially-speaking that is) and make up. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

April 6, 2015

A 2-Year Campaign Cycle

So campaigning for the Presidential election, still quite some time off in November 2016, has already begun in earnest in Washington, D.C.

With roughly 600 days to the election, we are going to be spending a lot of time and money leading-up to this thing. 

Are you excited about all the lead up and electioneering?

The Chicago Tribune did an interesting comparison of the U.S. and U.K. in this regard.

In 2008, the U.S. spent $1.7 billion on the campaign (and you can be sure this number is continuing to go up, up, and away) versus roughly $33 million imposed on each major party in the U.K. and an election announced in April for May--one month! 

While you can argue that one month is too short for such a major decision for a country...do we really need 20+ months and billions in media advertising to communicate the candidates' points of view and to coalesce around our next President?

Perhaps spending more time actually accomplishing things for the country and it's people during a President's tenure would be a far better focus of our national attention and efforts than an near endless cheer of ra ra ra sis boom ba yay candidate!  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

July 7, 2013

Got References?

If you've ever done any hiring, you'll know that the reference checking can be the wildest part of the process. 

Some people have a lot of trouble coming up with good references or perhaps any references. 

In one case (actually more than one), calling the number provided for the candidate's supervisor went to the voicemail for the candidate him/herself--ah, clearly that doesn't help.

However, often candidates don't want their references checked until they have a clear intent of offer, which is sort of understandable--they don't want their references bothered unnecessarily and don't want to jeopardize their current position--but also a little bit of a chicken and egg approach, since you can't provide a real offer without checking references first. 

Then, there is a whole different category, where references are just bogus. In fact, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek (14 January 2013), in an article called "Imaginary Friends as Job References," a CareerBuilder survey of 2,500 hiring managers found that "30% regularly find false or misleading references on applicants CVs."

Maybe candidates think that throwing around big names on their resume will just land them the job or at least get them a foot in the door--not fully realizing that the references will actually get called. 

One of the funniest anecdotes in the article was that of a hiring manager who actually found himself listed as a candidate's reference---I can hear the candidate fessing up now, "Oh, did I do that?"

Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to list people that don't know you, don't like you, or are not professional references like your mom, your boy/girlfriend, or your 5th grade teacher--then again, maybe that last one is okay if you're Doggie Howser, M.D. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Tulane Publications)
Share/Save/Bookmark