|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. February 1, 2004 What is the Deal with the Democratic Primaries? By Jan A. Larson If you're like me, you've been following the Democrats as they jockey and joust in their efforts to become the challenger to President Bush in the November election. On one hand, I find the politicking to be quite entertaining. Howard Dean's collapse from shoo-in to also-ran has been remarkable. There have been many theories offered as to why Dean's supposedly well-financed campaign suffered such an astounding meltdown. I will offer that the only one that makes sense is that his ideas for leading the country were just plain ridiculous. His primal scream after a third place finish in the Iowa caucuses simply confirmed for many that Dean is just plain goofy. John Kerry seems the most "presidential" of the remaining candidates, that is, when he's not using the "f" word. Al Sharpton offers comic relief from time to time, but can anyone imagine this guy as President of the United States? Joe Lieberman seems to offer the most rational approach to the issues of any candidate, but has the persona of a paper napkin. General Clark doesn't seem to know what or who he is. He entered the campaign with much fanfare and seems to be falling out of the campaign silently. John Edwards has a nice haircut, but will Americans put an ambulance chaser into the White House? Dennis Kucinich? Few know who this guy is. On the other hand, however, the campaigns have clearly demonstrated just how out of touch wealthy politicians are from mainstream America. Both front-runner Kerry and contender Edwards talk about going to Washington to work for the "ordinary people." Just who are the ordinary people anyway? I don't consider myself ordinary and I don't suspect very many other people do either. Maybe we're ordinary because we don't have to balance multi-million dollar bank accounts. The "I know what is best for you" attitude reminds me of the time some years ago when one of the executives announced his resignation from the small company for which I was working. In his farewell speech, he insisted the company was still a great place to work - for us. I believe all of the candidates, while vigorously denying it, vastly underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Candidates flip-flop on issues while seeking to stake out a position in the moderate-liberal spectrum, pander to their audience at campaign rallies and blather on about the failed policies of the current administration. The only reason that any particular candidate does not blast one of the President's policies, whether foreign or domestic, is if that candidate cast a vote in favor of that policy, as is the case for Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman on various issues. It is amazing to me that the candidates cannot find even one thing that the President has done that wasn't completely wrong. If the President had proclaimed that the sky is blue, the Democrats would insist that it isn't. Do people really believe this? Maybe the beer-guzzling yahoos that are the apparent prime targets of the various campaigns believe it, but I would offer that those beer-guzzling yahoos aren't the ones that vote. As for the rest of the American electorate, I believe that most can spot obfuscation, mischaracterization and the outright lies offered forth by these would-be leaders of the free world. I generally assume that candidates criticize the current administration for political reasons, but without really meaning what they say in call cases. In the case of the current crop of Democrats, however, I'm convinced that they really don't understand economics when they criticize the President's economic policies and they are counting on the voters to not understand economics either. Sadly, for many voters, that is the case. The candidates are all quick to criticize the President's tax cuts and rail about the deficit, but is anyone surprised that no candidate ever mentions spending cuts? Budget problems can be solved in two ways - more revenue or less spending, but these candidates find it easier to promise more and more than it is to advocate a responsible position of cutting wasteful spending. The entire primary process is bizarre. It is amazing to me that John Kerry's campaign could go from life support a few weeks ago to the team to beat after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Kerry's campaign turned around when a fellow Viet Nam veteran came forward in Iowa and told how Kerry had saved his life. Would Kerry be in the lead if that man had stayed home? It just doesn't seem logical that the voters in two small states, hardly representative of the nation's demographics, should have such a major impact on which candidate will ultimately emerge as the Democratic nominee. Would there be a different front-runner today if the first primaries had been held in South Carolina and California rather than Iowa and New Hampshire? The process kicks into high gear this week with a host of primaries across the country. If all go according to form, John Kerry will be the clear favorite for the nomination, but if there are some upsets along the way, maybe the entertainment will continue a while longer, that is, until the real entertainment starts this fall. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
