One on the Democrats
I don't usually criticize Democrats in this blog. It's not that I think they're infallible because after all, they've lost two presidential elections that they should have won as well as numerous congressional races and gubernatorial elections. But I'll make an exception today. The Democrats are thinking of changing the order of the primary elections. They want to move Nevada and South Carolina earlier and diminish the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire.
I can get behind diminishing the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. There's no reason why two small states should have such prodigious influence on the selection of a national candidate. But changing the order of primaries won't protect the party from another disastrous candidate like Al Gore or John Kerry. There are days when I'm afraid that sort of candidate is exactly what the party leaders want.
In 2004, we went into the primary season with an apparent steamroller candidate in Howard Dean. He was kicking everybody's butt in all of the polls, and he appeared to be getting stronger all the time. He was a strong speaker. It was easy to see the difference between his positions and Bush's. And, as I say, he was kicking butt in the polls.
Governor Dean, however, wasn't a Democratic Leadership Council Democrat. He was a "Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," sort of like Harry Truman. After he started kicking butts in the polls and before the primaries got started, Democratic insiders started worrying about his electability. I had a couple of discussions with people at work who are generally reasonably liberal Democrats, and they were parroting the electability question. I couldn't get an answer to a question that I considered fundamental: If he's not electable, why is he polling so strongly? But apprently, enough people were taken in to vote against Dean in the early primaries and we ended up with John Kerry, who simply looked stupid trying to differentiate himself from Bush.
It's two years until the next presidential election, and I'm hoping the Democrats' decision will be simple: Give President Pelosi (who took over after Bush and Cheney were impeached) an elected term. But that's not something we can really talk about too much; people who believe that the United States is the strongest country on earth might decide that the strongest country on earth couldn't stand the impeachment of a president and vice president, no matter how corrupt they were proven to be, and they might be so fearful that they would come to the polls and vote for Republicans. But who are we talking about? Hilary Clinton.
Please spare me. Hilary can't make up her mind about the war in Iraq. She sounds a lot like John Kerry on the subject, except that she hasn't really turned against it. She says she'll support the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, but she doesn't tell Joe Lieberman that if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination, he shouldn't run against the party's nominee--and her husband is actually campaigning for Lieberman. There are plenty of people who will vote against Hilary simply because she's Hilary, and people who will vote against Hilary because she's married to Bill. I'm a Democrat, and I can't come up with any reasons to vote for her. But Hilary is apparently the choice of the Democratic insiders, perhaps the Democratic Leadership Council.
The trick is listening to people, not trying to point them in a direction. Pointing people in a direction is the kind of thing that the Bush family and other Republicans do. It's based on the assumption that the insiders know better than the people, and in most cases, it means that the candidate sounds a lot like a Republican but not as friendly. And then somebody like Bush gets elected.
I can get behind diminishing the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. There's no reason why two small states should have such prodigious influence on the selection of a national candidate. But changing the order of primaries won't protect the party from another disastrous candidate like Al Gore or John Kerry. There are days when I'm afraid that sort of candidate is exactly what the party leaders want.
In 2004, we went into the primary season with an apparent steamroller candidate in Howard Dean. He was kicking everybody's butt in all of the polls, and he appeared to be getting stronger all the time. He was a strong speaker. It was easy to see the difference between his positions and Bush's. And, as I say, he was kicking butt in the polls.
Governor Dean, however, wasn't a Democratic Leadership Council Democrat. He was a "Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," sort of like Harry Truman. After he started kicking butts in the polls and before the primaries got started, Democratic insiders started worrying about his electability. I had a couple of discussions with people at work who are generally reasonably liberal Democrats, and they were parroting the electability question. I couldn't get an answer to a question that I considered fundamental: If he's not electable, why is he polling so strongly? But apprently, enough people were taken in to vote against Dean in the early primaries and we ended up with John Kerry, who simply looked stupid trying to differentiate himself from Bush.
It's two years until the next presidential election, and I'm hoping the Democrats' decision will be simple: Give President Pelosi (who took over after Bush and Cheney were impeached) an elected term. But that's not something we can really talk about too much; people who believe that the United States is the strongest country on earth might decide that the strongest country on earth couldn't stand the impeachment of a president and vice president, no matter how corrupt they were proven to be, and they might be so fearful that they would come to the polls and vote for Republicans. But who are we talking about? Hilary Clinton.
Please spare me. Hilary can't make up her mind about the war in Iraq. She sounds a lot like John Kerry on the subject, except that she hasn't really turned against it. She says she'll support the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, but she doesn't tell Joe Lieberman that if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination, he shouldn't run against the party's nominee--and her husband is actually campaigning for Lieberman. There are plenty of people who will vote against Hilary simply because she's Hilary, and people who will vote against Hilary because she's married to Bill. I'm a Democrat, and I can't come up with any reasons to vote for her. But Hilary is apparently the choice of the Democratic insiders, perhaps the Democratic Leadership Council.
The trick is listening to people, not trying to point them in a direction. Pointing people in a direction is the kind of thing that the Bush family and other Republicans do. It's based on the assumption that the insiders know better than the people, and in most cases, it means that the candidate sounds a lot like a Republican but not as friendly. And then somebody like Bush gets elected.
posted by amsterdr at 11:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home