![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Column Fodder: Politicos
Nov. 7th, 2003 09:36 amThe presidential vote is a year away and the candidates are jockeying for position. Actually, they've already been going for the last six months. As a Bush voter from last time, I could end up voting for him again, but he's certainly not the ideal candidate for me. He's actually disappointed me greatly with his domestic policy, no fiscal responsibility, creating unnecessary departments instead of realigning existing resources, divisive policies based on religious values.
The one thing I do like President Bush for is his ability to stay with something. I actually think there's positive gains to be made in Iraq. While I questioned going in there at first, now that we are there, we need to do what we can to leave the area as stable as we can. Will we be successful? Can you trust that we're doing the right thing? Is there actually a plan? I have no idea.
I see bad things happening in Iraq every day, but every once in a while, I see that something positive is happening for the Iraqi citizens. Sure, there's people who are there strictly to continue chaos and try to drive us out. They hope that American sentiment will push our leaders to cave in and leave Iraq. I believe that Bush won't cave in. It's going to be rough, but he's ready to take the risks, and in the polls, it doesn't seem to be hurting him.
On the other side of the fence, all nine of the Democratic candidates are ready to pull the troops out. The question is, are they saying that to gain votes from the disaffected, or do they really have a policy in place? I'm sure they looked at creating the position first, and then the plan afterwards. It seems that everything the Democratic candidates stand for is just a contrarian position to that of the Republicans, positions without real thought.
There's a certain "let's throw up something and see if it sticks" feel with the candidates. Nine candidates give the Democrats a laboratory to try out different angles. Here's the moral guy, here's the minority woman, the professional politician, the southerner, the ex-general, and so on. Perhaps at this point there's too many choices. When we get around to asking whether the candidates like Macs of PC's (Macs, baby!) we should look at actually how tuned in to these people we are.
I loved the farce that General Wesley Clark has become. He swoops in as the Democrats' moderate candidate, the one designed to appeal to moderate Republicans with his history of Gulf War and Bosnia service. He shows up in a flash, and then proves that he doesn't have any positions on, well anything. He's the perfect empty suit just waiting for an idea to fall on him. This isn't exactly a wise positioning for the party. It makes them look mighty desperate.
I've been looking at one candidate in particular, and that's Howard Dean. Despite the other candidates now turning on him, trying to kick the frontrunner down. Dean has actually gotten to the people and connected, when his competition hasn't. He has a presence that at least demands you check him out, whether you like his ideology or not.
There's things I do like about him. His record in Vermont seems strong, including some fiscal responsibility and his record on gay rights - which I hope he won't waffle on just to win votes. With gays being a small minority, it's easy place to promise the moon, but then totally ignore the group when it comes down to the tough issues. It's very hard to not be cynical about any candidate these days.
Some might point to Dean's recent comment of wanting to connect with the voter "with the Confederate flag sticker in the back of his pickup" as the undoing of this candidate, but I don't think so. I really understand that he's just wanting to connect with the common man, especially in the South. Now Texas is not the South, but the South, and Texas have been going increasingly conservative, and voting more and more for the Republican Party. It makes sense that the Democrats need to regain ground in the South and they need to start targeting the area.
Dean's comments may have been a little clunky, but really, I see Confederate flag stickers every day. There's a lot of people, not necessarily racist people, that still hold on to some of the "southern" feeling. You have to remember that the South has been growing for the last 40 years more from an influx of people from the north than any baby boom. The Democrats used to rule the South, and they lost that base. To win, they need to be connecting with the New South. To state that you're going to try, when others seem to be ignoring it, is a wise move.
I'll admit, I'm out of touch with politics. I'm apathetic to what the discourse is. Probably since I'm so cynical about politicians these days. You get burned by even the "perfect' candidate, and you realize, that because how the game is played, with back door deals, career politicians and media soundbites, that no one intelligent enough to truly lead would ever run for office in your lifetime. It's hard to care. You make your choice and hope for the best. Even though my candidate "won" last time, I'm not totally sure I won.
The candidate who will probably mirror my political views the most hasn't stepped up yet. The Libertarians always seem to put up someone intelligent, well spoken and totally unable to draw more than a handful of people to vote for him/her. I hope that the Libertarian candidate will be able to at least jump in to the arena and throw out some good points, but at the end of the day, there just doesn't seem to be much progress made. The Democrats and Republicans have such a stranglehold on the process that very little independent thought ever emerges. People wonder why Americans don't get involved with the political process.
I'll be watching Dean. So far he's the most interesting of the candidates, and the most likely to take my vote away from Bush. Strangely, these two candidates couldn't be any more different.
The one thing I do like President Bush for is his ability to stay with something. I actually think there's positive gains to be made in Iraq. While I questioned going in there at first, now that we are there, we need to do what we can to leave the area as stable as we can. Will we be successful? Can you trust that we're doing the right thing? Is there actually a plan? I have no idea.
I see bad things happening in Iraq every day, but every once in a while, I see that something positive is happening for the Iraqi citizens. Sure, there's people who are there strictly to continue chaos and try to drive us out. They hope that American sentiment will push our leaders to cave in and leave Iraq. I believe that Bush won't cave in. It's going to be rough, but he's ready to take the risks, and in the polls, it doesn't seem to be hurting him.
On the other side of the fence, all nine of the Democratic candidates are ready to pull the troops out. The question is, are they saying that to gain votes from the disaffected, or do they really have a policy in place? I'm sure they looked at creating the position first, and then the plan afterwards. It seems that everything the Democratic candidates stand for is just a contrarian position to that of the Republicans, positions without real thought.
There's a certain "let's throw up something and see if it sticks" feel with the candidates. Nine candidates give the Democrats a laboratory to try out different angles. Here's the moral guy, here's the minority woman, the professional politician, the southerner, the ex-general, and so on. Perhaps at this point there's too many choices. When we get around to asking whether the candidates like Macs of PC's (Macs, baby!) we should look at actually how tuned in to these people we are.
I loved the farce that General Wesley Clark has become. He swoops in as the Democrats' moderate candidate, the one designed to appeal to moderate Republicans with his history of Gulf War and Bosnia service. He shows up in a flash, and then proves that he doesn't have any positions on, well anything. He's the perfect empty suit just waiting for an idea to fall on him. This isn't exactly a wise positioning for the party. It makes them look mighty desperate.
I've been looking at one candidate in particular, and that's Howard Dean. Despite the other candidates now turning on him, trying to kick the frontrunner down. Dean has actually gotten to the people and connected, when his competition hasn't. He has a presence that at least demands you check him out, whether you like his ideology or not.
There's things I do like about him. His record in Vermont seems strong, including some fiscal responsibility and his record on gay rights - which I hope he won't waffle on just to win votes. With gays being a small minority, it's easy place to promise the moon, but then totally ignore the group when it comes down to the tough issues. It's very hard to not be cynical about any candidate these days.
Some might point to Dean's recent comment of wanting to connect with the voter "with the Confederate flag sticker in the back of his pickup" as the undoing of this candidate, but I don't think so. I really understand that he's just wanting to connect with the common man, especially in the South. Now Texas is not the South, but the South, and Texas have been going increasingly conservative, and voting more and more for the Republican Party. It makes sense that the Democrats need to regain ground in the South and they need to start targeting the area.
Dean's comments may have been a little clunky, but really, I see Confederate flag stickers every day. There's a lot of people, not necessarily racist people, that still hold on to some of the "southern" feeling. You have to remember that the South has been growing for the last 40 years more from an influx of people from the north than any baby boom. The Democrats used to rule the South, and they lost that base. To win, they need to be connecting with the New South. To state that you're going to try, when others seem to be ignoring it, is a wise move.
I'll admit, I'm out of touch with politics. I'm apathetic to what the discourse is. Probably since I'm so cynical about politicians these days. You get burned by even the "perfect' candidate, and you realize, that because how the game is played, with back door deals, career politicians and media soundbites, that no one intelligent enough to truly lead would ever run for office in your lifetime. It's hard to care. You make your choice and hope for the best. Even though my candidate "won" last time, I'm not totally sure I won.
The candidate who will probably mirror my political views the most hasn't stepped up yet. The Libertarians always seem to put up someone intelligent, well spoken and totally unable to draw more than a handful of people to vote for him/her. I hope that the Libertarian candidate will be able to at least jump in to the arena and throw out some good points, but at the end of the day, there just doesn't seem to be much progress made. The Democrats and Republicans have such a stranglehold on the process that very little independent thought ever emerges. People wonder why Americans don't get involved with the political process.
I'll be watching Dean. So far he's the most interesting of the candidates, and the most likely to take my vote away from Bush. Strangely, these two candidates couldn't be any more different.
