Instead of having the American people vote in primaries, that unfairly exclude voters in states where the date is weeks after Iowa and New Hampshire, go back to the system where delegates meet and decide on a candidate at the convention. ‘One person one vote’ having dropped itself back into the news cycle after a typically long hiatus, I thought it was only right to give it a twirl before it’s once again covered in moth balls. Why does a voter in Iowa have more of a say in who represents my party in a Presidential race than I do?
By spreading out the dates, the practice of nominating a candidate becomes less acute in terms of the ‘cream rising to the top’. While some politicians are enormously talented legislators, their ability to campaign is not up to that level. Likewise, there are brilliant campaigners who seem to bring the ‘campaign mentality’ over to the job once they’re elected, hence limiting their ability to build consensus. It’s this reality of politics here in America, that nothing gets done when campaign-style rhetoric carries over to Capitol Hill once it’s time to start punching the clock.
Maintaining the sanctity of both House and Senate chambers requires members to adhere to a level of professionalism, not unlike most business environments here in America. As ideologically polarized as these legislators may be, somewhere in the middle is where things get done. Convincing the voters that you’re the right person for the job at this point is less important than convincing your colleagues that your ideas are right for the republic. It is from this point on that the true test of the politician’s talent begins.
Whereas one House or Senate member elected to an office they were unqualified to hold will not fatally damage the entire Congress, the same cannot be said for the executive. Two or more candidates hit the campaign trail in the primary, and the ‘Hollywood’ part of our political system kicks in. Who is the more convincing speaker? What wedge issue was used against an opponent to drive voters away from them? Which ‘looked’ the most ‘presidential’? Who provided the media with a cherry video clip that they could then replay ad-nauseam as long as it got ratings? Bob Dole’s trip off of the stage, and Howard Dean’s scream are perfect examples of what I’m getting at here.
The primary routine eats up more than a month, and for the sake of the television, radio and print media who benefit from it most, what the taxpayers end up with is nothing more than performance art. Complete with characters like Dennis Kuchinich, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes, who for the sake of a cause (the word ‘selfish’ comes to mind), never recognize when their 15 minutes has long past expired. Yet why would they recognize this? As long as votes are taking place one, two and three weeks from now, the cameras are still following them around, who cares if their presence is 100% irrelevant? This is show business people!
To give voters in Iowa and New Hampshire preferential treatment in deciding who our next president might be, shouldn’t it be assumed that the populations of both states represent an accurate sampling of the cultural diversity of America as a whole? Taking the process into consideration, with the accepted standard of ‘one person one vote’, logic would indicate to an outsider that Iowa and New Hampshire must be the two most diverse states in the republic. Of course we all know that couldn’t be further from the truth. Both states are overwhelmingly full of white people.
Besides the states that vote towards the beginning of the primary process, who could look at this nomination system of ours and reconcile it with the sheer brilliance that dominates so much of our government’s framework? Equality and fairness being ideas that have guided our republic’s destiny since the Declaration of Independence, through adoption of the 14th amendment and into the future; how does something as obvious as the unfair method we utilize to nominate presidential candidates remain in such dysfunction for so long? I’ve never been able to figure it out.
I do know this. If Abe Lincoln hadn’t prevailed at the Republican convention in Chicago, the United States may have never survived the Civil War. Seward most likely would have won the nomination if the system in place today was used back then, and anyone knowledgable of that time in history knows that he most likely wouldn’t have received enough votes in the south to win. In Lincoln, the cream truly did rise to the top. If such a scenario presented itself today, I’m not confident at all that the process would turn out the best person for the job.
To give voters in Iowa and New Hampshire preferential treatment in deciding who our next president might be,
What is the advantage you think Iowa and New Hampshire have in the primaries? I think the primary process weeds out loosers like Howard Dean. Can you imagine the Civil War we would be in right now if Howard Dean became President? It would be a nightmare.
Wrong – it equals millions in advertising, and leaves us with Kuchinich and Sharpton on the TV for a month, when they only deserved 15 minutes.
I’m not upset about how the primary paned out…I’m talking about ‘one person one vote’ here. Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white, and neither state encapsulates the true diversity of America.
Switch Iowa and New Hampshire for Florida and Ohio and we’re close. Have everyone vote on the same day and you’ve got something real.
As it stands now, the American system of nominating party candidates is a farce!
I’m not upset about how the primary paned out…I’m talking about ‘one person one vote’ here. Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white, and neither state encapsulates the true diversity of America.
I still don’t get where your coming from. Everyone who wants to vote, gets to vote, if legally allowed to do so. What’s the big deal? If Sharpton and Kucinich want to buy airtime, so be it.
Sharpton and Kucinich don’t have to BUY airtime Right, they’re given it for free. And the candidates like Lieberman and (just woke up so…) the fellow from Missouri (Gephart) aren’t even relevant by the time we’re at the 3rd cycle of voting.
The circumstances are fundamentally different politically from the time the first two states vote, and the 20th state votes. Candidates who would do better in the red states are marginalized by the time the vote even gets there.
The media attaches itself to it’s two darlings ‘Kerry and Dean this time around’, and the country ends up with a less electable candidate than it might have had if the entire country were allowed to vote at the same time, like we do all the time here in America.
Another way to save politics is to make the MSM and DNC for the lies it tells. An interesting read. Somewhere in the comments here I was ranting about MSM bias. This should probably be there instead. This is the closet relavent topic I could find quickly. Real life duties are making it hard to spend time here.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2006/01/msm-lies-of-2005-what-does-it-mean.html
We found WMDs in Iraq??? Frodo, this is ridiculous.
Talk about semantics! First of all, Bush was ballparking it. Second of all, a semantical gaffe doesn’t mean the number isn’t relevant.
Is this blogger trying to pretend that 30K civilians haven’t died? Is that the point here, or is it just that saying Iraqis have died might mean that…
Frodo, are you down with this list? Or did you scan it? If you scanned it, I can understand, you’re at work and hitting up deadissue on the fly (something we all appreciate btw!), I’m not going to assume that you’re on this person’s side on every single one of these. Because she’s doing some major hair-splitting!
Is she now??!!! I have noticed the MSM media bias for years. My contempt for them started years ago, about the time I got old enough to know better.
This last election really turned me off. It was the most important one in my life time or that is how I think anyway.
It is about time someone called them out on it. People have been for years. They have a politcal agenda. Its obvious to most people I talk to. They claim media endoresemtns of canidates can generate a %15 advantage come election time. Factor this into the last few elections and I think you see a change in the overall publics impression of the liberals who are struggling for power in this country.
Time is limited here at my job, and at home, some of my more recent posts have reflected that when I look back at them. I use to sit and force myself to workout comments that were well thought out and original thoughts on my part and back them up, or so I thought, with links. That has been missing lately becuase of real life conditions lately. I need to get back to that.
The MSM and DNC comments about the WMD’s issue is a big thorn im my but right now. Do you have any idea of what has been found over there? Well if you only get your news from the MSM and newspapers and the talking head shows on the radio my guess is no you do not. I will find a good sumary link to share if I can find it. It was out in blogs months ago. The most important non-story the press has chasen not to talk about. Again, they have an agenda.
Also this just in from CNN. New tape from Osama Bin Laden himself. CNN shows that al Qaeda is paying close attention to MSM polls and pandering to moonbat sentiment:
CNN could not immediately confirm that the voice in the poor-quality audiotape, which was aired on Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera on Thursday, was that of bin Laden. However, CNN Senior Editor for Arab Affairs Octavia Nasr said it does sound like the al Qaeda leader.
“Our mujahedeen were able to overcome all the security measures in European countries and you saw their operation in major European capitals,” the voice on the tape said.
“As for similar operations taking place in America, it’s only a matter of time. They are in the planning stages and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete.”
There is also no way to determine when the message was recorded, but the reference to attacks in European cities could indicate it was recorded after the July 7 bombings on London’s transportation system that killed 52 people.
There was no mention in the portions of the tape that were broadcast of the CIA strike on a home in Damadola, Pakistan, on January 13 that targeted senior al Qaeda members who had been expected to attend a dinner there that night. It’s not clear if any of them were among the 18 killed.
The man speaking in the audiotape also cited American opinion polls, saying that most Americans want U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq.
“Your President Bush has been misleading you. He has lied when he said that the people are behind him. Opinion polls have indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want him to pull the troops out of our land.
“We have the answer to these misleading information. The situation in Iraq is getting worse for you and the dead and the injured among you is on the rise,” the voice on the tape said.
It’s not clear exactly what polls he’s referencing, but CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls released January 11 regarding the Iraq war showed that 53 percent of those questioned felt things were going badly for the United States in Iraq, and 46 percent thought things were going well.
Half the respondents said it was a bad idea to send U.S. troops to Iraq, while 47 percent said it wasn’t. Fifty-two percent said it wasn’t worth going to war in Iraq, but 46 percent felt it was.
My Commentary: So does it matter what the media and DNC preach to us to the point that negitive, and in my opinion somewhat wrong, impressions about the war on terror and in Iraq, get communicated to the public enough to sway public opinion?
Obvioulsy many many people are watching to see what we will do. And before we make any hasty decisions we need to know the truth about the facts.
I have said this before “I hold in contempt all those who slant thier coverage of events in the war on terror and in Iraq. The stakes are high. We must win. Swaying public opinion based on biased reporting and outright lies should be criminal.”
I must find that summary of all the evidence of WMD that they have found. I will link it later when I have more time to dig it up.
All I can say is OUCH!!!! I found this article looking for the WMD story. Do you see any pre-judging going in the questions from the reporters?? Bush is already guilty according to them. Good responses. Bush should have started the push-back months ago. I blame him for not starting sooner. This is good read it here:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/after-mlk-bush-bash-weekend-wh-press.html
I am not sure but the broken link in this article is the one I was thinking of. I remember the article to be very though about what had been found that qualified as WMD found in Iraq.
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=2391
Here is more on the WMD finds in Iraq:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php
This is long:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_testimony_03302004.html
Not sure but this guy seems like he needs his meds:
http://www.punditguy.com/2005/08/weapons_found_i.html
Opps forgot one. Still can not find the summary one I was thinking about oh well. Last one I promise:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001934.php
We found WMDs in Iraq??? Frodo, this is ridiculous.
This was established long ago, “they” got to it before we did in the invasion. Also, the Kurds didn’t gas themselves, it had to come from somewhere.
Right-Frodo…back to reality alright, Bush wouldn’t make the claim that we found WMDs in Iraq. Because it’s false.
And on the gassing of the Kurds, those munitions have shelf lives of only so many years. Saddam purchased them from someone to use on Iran…who that someone might have been…considering we sell Pakistan sidewinders, the dots are easy to connect.
Limbaugh, Hannity…they’ll lie and say we found WMDs or huff and puff about circumstantial evidence until the brainwashing has been completed, but it doesn’t make it so!
If we had found WMDs, Bush would be able to step up to the podium and say as much. HE HASN’T! This is a closed case. Just like Limbaugh saying the Vietnam war was weeks away from ending in a US victory before we withdrew…it’s 100% bullshit.
OK Frodo, the poll question is straightforward, but the results are only indicative of the mind control of MSM sources? So everyone in the country but you is incapable of making up their own minds?
When the polls were in favor of the war, they were trumpeted by Republicans. Now they’re negative and it’s because the rest of the country doesn’t understand the situation quite as well as you do?
I’ve got to get some sleep – I’m looking forward to digging into those links tomorrow.
Last thing though – if I believe that global climate change is taking place, but the polls don’t agree with me, it doesn’t mean everyone is stupid except for me.
That’s what conservatives bitched and complained about liberals for doing, for years! You’re doing the same thing. Saying that whoever disagrees with you according to the polling is dumber than you are. That they’re under some kind of spell.
Now, I don’t rant about hillbillies or Nascar dads or anything derogatory when it comes to political commentary. Politics is NOT about who’s right in ever instance, and it never will be. Politics is about deals, power and the ability to inspire, convince people that your ideas are sound.
Bush’s ideas aren’t being agreed upon by the PEOPLE – – – when that happens, the lazy thing to do is simply blame the messenger.
And I quote “Chris Austin says:
OK Frodo, the poll question is straightforward, but the results are only indicative of the mind control of MSM sources? So everyone in the country but you is incapable of making up their own minds?
People are capable of making up the own and did last election. I am no smarter than anyone else. If you can not see the bias its because they, more often than not, agree with your politica thinking. Again look at the studies done on this topic.
One thing we’ve learned over the last few years is that the mainstream media is far too elitist, and far too top-down. from the Pajamas Media web site. When people pass off thier reporting as unbiased I laugh. I have yet to meet anyone who is unbiased including reporters. With the NYT recently they are throwing away all respectability and leaking what should national secrets. Who side are they on anyway?