Redefining the Election

Now that the first Caucus and the first Primary in the nation is finished, what does it tell us? (I mean, beside the fact that we really shouldn't have to worry about elections before the holidays...sigh.) Here are some random thoughts on how things are shaping up in the two parties, third party restlessness, and general political mood.

Democrats:

Barack Obama -

OK, he proves he can win, albeit in Iowa. It does show that his message at least resonates in a primarily white rural state. Now some, mainly the Clinton campaign and their supporters, have challenged that he really doesn't have a message except that people should have hope. I disagree. I think that a message of uniting the country's divide between red states and blue states is very compelling, particularly to independents and people that are just sick of the rancor. I certainly count myself among those ranks. It used to be, in modern times (20th Century) that partisan ideology was healthy. If you had Republicans (who used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government) come together with Democrats (who used to believe in ways to have government help people), you found that with a little compromise, you could come up with legislation that actually got passed and might have even worked. Somewhere along the way, the word compromise, began to mean surrender as the ideologues from left and right began to take control of their respective parties. The reality is the Senate cannot function without this arrangement because you need 60 votes to get anything passed. It is my belief that this is why so little gets done in Congress and why the public is so deeply unhappy with their lack of action on any issue. It is no accident that Independent or Decline is the fastest growing party registration in the Country. I think Obama speaks directly to that group and the group of Democrats that want to see the country move on.


Hillary Clinton -

Hillary Clinton manages a big comeback and ends up winning New Hampshire. Now all the pundits are asking why. Why were the polls wrong? Why was the coverage wrong? Why were the pundits off the mark? Much was made about her getting choked up in the diner when "someone" asked her how she goes on. Was it staged? I'm cynical enough to think it was, but it is ultimately unimportant. People will not remember that scene in another couple of weeks. In election years, people have even shorter attention spans than normal. Mostly because the Media has beaten it out of us. What was I talking about again...? Oh yes, Hillary. I must say, I am mystified. I cannot understand her appeal. She claims to have experience. What experience would that be? She's served about a term and a half in the Senate, which is nice, but hardly overwhelming. And before that? Well, she tried to reform healthcare, which was a disaster, she was a successful attorney. OK, fine. She was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years and First Lady of the US for 8 years. Um...OK, is she claiming that as experience? I don't think that counts. I've been married to my wife for almost 13 years and I am not experienced in what she does for a living. I know the highlights of the issues we've discussed, but that does not give me experience. Some people counter that with Hillary, you get 2 for the price of 1. Well, how extra-constitutional. Shhh, I think I hear George Washington rolling over in his grave. So, a vote for Hillary, not only gets me one president, but also a former president, who by law cannot serve again, to come back as well. No thanks. We're not some kind of banana republic! Why is this even under consideration? I have read a lot about the Founding Fathers and the War for Independence recently. While I am no expert, I think I can safely say that the Founders would be appalled by the idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure if someone asked them "What country will have been ruled by 2 families for potentially two and a half decades?", they would probably respond, "Um...England?" This and the fact that I simply cannot live through another 4-8 years of the Republicans frothing at the mouth. It would mean the country would not move forward and I simply cannot abide that.

The latest is now Hillary was being questioned by some in the media about her comments regarding Obama and his message of hope. She spoke about how Martin Luther King, Jr. had hope, but it took the power of the presidency in LBJ to actually pass the Civil Rights Act. Now she is complaining that the Obama campaign is making a big deal about this. From everything I have seen and read, it is not Obama that was bringing it up, but the Media. Now just so I understand this, Hillary seems to be saying that it's not enough to be like MLK and inspire people to demonstrate and stand up for themselves. In short, a message of hope for a nation deeply divided by racial tensions. No, it took a white guy to come ride to the rescue, as president, to actually get something done. I can't imagine why people took offense at that. Then other's in the Clinton campaign have made snide allusions to Obama's admitted drug use in his youth. I have read what Obama has said on this issue. He said he wanted people to know about this part of his past, particularly youth. His message is, that if you make a mistake in life, you can still turn your life around and accomplish something. Life is not one strike and your out. Well, that's just a terrible message... I am embarrassed by the Clintonites making this an issue in a derisive way. I am particularly angry to see someone like Bob Johnson make snide references to it. Let's see; what is is Bob Johnson's great contribution to the African American community. Oh yeah, it's a television channel that plays mostly music videos featuring scantily clad dressed women. You're a great example Bob. Now I've been told that the Clintons have done a lot throughout their careers to help further the African American community. If that is true, and I will take it on their word that it is, then they are in danger of squandering all the good they have done by engaging in gutter politics to try and bring Obama down. It's shameful.

I simply will not vote for her, if she is the nominee. Are you listening Democrats?


John Edwards -

Why is he still in the race? Didn't he have to win Iowa? Wasn't that his strategy? Psst, John, you didn't win. Now please bow out graciously.


The rest -

Let's see the 3 candidates that have actual experience - Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd have dropped out. I guess that blows the notion that experience counts. I think Biden or Richardson would have been fine. If I had to listen to Chris Dodd talk for 4 years, I might go mad. He bores me to tears.

I think Dennis Kusinich and Mike Gravel are still in the race, but it's not clear why. I have mixed feelings on that. I think on one hand that at this point they are up against Quixotic odds of going anywhere and on the other hand, it is really not good that the Media has anointed 3 people as this horse race. Nobody can be heard above the din. It's not really a good thing. It keeps people out of getting their message across. But, we are where we are and these gentlemen need to give it up.


Republicans:

Mike Huckabee -

Well, well. He wins Iowa and the Wall Street crowd goes into a panic. This is a guy who came to Iowa with no money and no organization and beat Mit Romney by 10 points. Wow! Now, what's so horrible about Mike Huckabee. Well, he has the audacity to have raised taxes as governor of Arkansas. Now what did he do to waste the taxpayers money? Why it was a reckless spending program of roads and schools. Also, Huckabee has the crazy notion that some government programs might be able to help people, if their run effectively. Heavens to betsy...run for your life. Guess what folks, roads cost money. We don't live in a Communist society where we can compel people to build the infrastructure for the good of the motherland. When did proponents of smaller efficient government turn into anarchists?

Of course, Mike Huckabee is right there on social issues; hates abortion, thinks gays should stay in the closet, thinks we live in a Christian nation, yada, yada, yada. Now he's being accused of destroying the Republican coalition of fiscal conservatives (where were you hiding from 2001-2006?), social/relgious conservatives, and libertarians (kept neatly in a lock box until they need them). It seemed like a pretty weird coalition to begin with, but who am I to say. The bottom line is, even though I may disagree with most of what Mike Huckabee stands for on social issues, [The Angry Moderate's takes a fairly libertarian stand there] there are many things he says that makes sense. I'll give you an example. Voter ID laws. Conservatives love them, Liberals hate them, and the Supreme Court is looking at them right now. Now Liberals will argue that Voter ID laws, which require a voter to show state issued picture identification before your vote will be counted in an election, does nothing but intimidate and suppress the vote among poor, elderly, and minority voters. Conservatives argue that states need these laws to combat rampant voter fraud. Now, surprise surprise, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The fact is that rampant voter fraud is a myth. Sure, some fraud happens, but it is extremely rare and is usually done with absentee ballots, not with voting in person. Second, is it unreasonable to ask for identification to a voter? Probably not. Mike Huckabee's solution to this was to have voters have their picture taken, right when they register to vote. Just like the DMV. In fact you could do it at the DMV. Sure, not everybody drives, but you can still get a state issued ID that is not a driver's license. Huckabee's solution seems eminently reasonable. The other thing is, he's just a nice guy. I've seen a couple different interviews with him on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and he always comes off as a likeable guy. Don't underestimate that appeal with voters. People want someone they can relate with in the Oval Office. This guy has that.


John McCain -

New Hampshire seems to have saved his bacon. Once again, New Hampshire has given McCain's all but left for dead campaign a new boost. I think it just goes to show how fluid the Republican side is. Nobody is totally happy with any of the candidates. John McCain has angered a lot of Republicans a long his career with the stands he has taken. Particularly with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which is anathema to the Republicans. My theory is it is anathema to all establishment people left or right, which probably makes it great legislation. Not a week goes by where George Will isn't railing against McCain on this issue. Move on George, you're boring me. The bottom line is that McCain appeals to a lot of people because he is independent on his decisions even when they aren't popular, but not in a George W. Bush kind of way. I think people have had it with that. McCain taps into a lot of independents and people who value his strong military support. If McCain wins Michigan, it will be a 2 man race between him and Huckabee.


Mitt Romney -

See John Edwards. OK, I guess he can conceivably win Michigan and have a lease on his campaign. Like Hillary, I fail to see the appeal. He seems like a used car salesman. A flip-flopping Massachusetts politician. How can that go badly? On a side note, someone asked Romney, who touts his executive experience early and often, what he would think about someone in business that spent $300K and another person that spent $30 million and achieved the same result. Great point.


Ron Paul -

I like Ron Paul. I can't help myself. I'm not a libertarian or anything, but you have to respect someone that says what they believe and stands up for it, no matter what. I think he's a real dark horse that could hang around a long time in this race asking the other candidates questions they don't want to hear. I love it. Go Ron!


Rudy Guliani -

I can't really understand his strategy. Forget about all the early contests and wait for Florida. OK, I know they have a lot of delegates, but everyone will have forgotten he's in the race. Well, it's your bed. As for Rudy, he would normally be the Angry Moderate's kind of candidate, except for the fact that he frightens me. I just don't trust him. He has a lot of shady characters associated with him and his foreign policy doesn't bring me comfort. I actually saw Norman Podhoretz, who is Rudy Guliani's senior foreign policy advisor, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer debating Fareed Zakaria, who is the Editor of Newsweek International, on action against Iran. It was pretty scary. Podhoretz was arguing for immediate strikes on Iran (this was about 4-months ago). That was frightening enough until he started arguing that Reagan was soft on Communism. Yes, that pinko Reagan, soft on communism. What madness. The guy was a complete lunatic. You could see the look of exasperation on Zakaria's face. It was really something.


Fred Thompson -

Why is this man running for president? He barely seems interested. Some pundit on the news was saying that he decided to sit out the New Hampshire primary. Wow...couldn't be bothered to show up, huh? This man is fast becoming my hero. I'll get to it later; what's the rush? I will say that I was disappointed in his showing at the Republican debate in South Carolina. He actually seemed like he wanted to win. Too bad, I think he had a real shot at the apathetic vote. Not that they would've shown up.


Duncan Hunter -

There was a story where John McCain's 2 campaign buses, followed by 2 press buses were cruising down a New Hampshire street when they passed Duncan Hunter and his one aid waving to cars passing by. Mr. Hunter, please take what's left of your dignity and go home. Thanks.


Michigan Primary is 1/15 for the Republicans and South Carolina is 1/19. That will hopefully make things a little clearer on the Republican side. For the Democrats, Michigan got stripped of their delegates, so it doesn't count. The South Carolina primary for them is 1/26 and Nevada is 1/19. Does that make sense? Why would a state elect to hold a primary on 2 different days?


The Independents -

Moderates from both parties gathered on January 7th at the University of OK to discuss (lament) the current state of politics. A lot of the big names were there; Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, William Cohen, Bob Graham, John Danforth, among others. Of course the 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Mike Bloomberg, the current mayor of NY, who is considering a third party run for the presidency. This meeting wasn't about Bloomberg. It was about the need for a bridge between the red/blue gulf in the country.

Their goal was to get both parties to pledge that they would appoint a bipartisan cabinet, no matter which party won the presidency. This follows closely to movements like Unity08.com that wants to nominate over the internet a person from each party to run together as a third party ticket. I think that both of these groups represent an undercurrent flowing through the populous. There is a huge desire to move past the stagnating partisan politics that both parties can't seem to find their way out of.

Now as important as I think moving past the partisan rancor is, I ultimately do not think that these efforts will be successful. I personally think that we need to break the 2 party system, once and for all. And I don't mean, let's replace one party with another, like in past times. We need more options than just 2. It would be good for America and good for the existing two parties. The more competition, the more the Democrats and Republicans would be unable to play only to their bases. So, what do we have to do to break the 2-party system? My first proposal in this; I would abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College was dreamed up because the Founders were unsure how the elections were going to go. Would they be able to trust the people? They weren't sure, so they hedged their bets and came up with the Electoral College. The system is designed to dilute the areas of the Country where the most people live; i.e. cities and more populous states. It has had the effect of keeping the 2-party system in place. You need to get 270 to win the presidency. If you have a third party that actually siphons off some electoral college votes, then what? Let's say for example that Mike Bloomberg runs and wins NY. That could mean that up to 31 electoral college votes could be off the table. Would the election be sent up to the House of Representatives to settle who wins the election? Would anybody really want that?

The parties have worked in concert with each other in modern times to keep 3rd party candidates out. They work to keep them off of ballots, out of debates, and out of the picture. To me, that is undemocratic. We need to have a credible third party. (I could be talked into more) I would like to see a Centrist party to represent the middle. Bring back the Whigs! I don't think it's good enough to have a bipartisan ticket or cabinet, though I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. There have been examples in the past where bipartisan cabinets worked well - Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" to quote Dorris Kearns Goodwin's book and examples where it didn't work - the first cabinet, Washington's where Jefferson worked to undermine him at every turn. I think that the ultimate solution is to break the duopoly and get more choice. More choice is healthy.


Discuss...