 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 28, 2007 at 04:26:12
Selecting Good Candidates Takes Time by Stephen Crockett Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
The front-loading of the Presidential race by both major political parties is not a positive development. The selection of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates should be a long and deliberate process. Ideas should be given time to develop, spread and be tested. The candidates should be running on ideas. We need time to evaluate the candidates.
Presidential candidate selection front-loading has started the political season very early. The early start will help offset some of the negative consequences of front-loading the primaries and caucuses but not all of them. While it gives us more time to get to know primary candidates, the early selection (of Presidential candidates) will likely result in very negative campaigns. Making politics dirty and negative is often used by the Republican Right to lower vote turn-out.
The remaining electorate is much more favorable to the viewpoints of the Republican Right than are those of the general public. In 2004, the Republican smear tactic of "swift-boating" became a permanent and very negative part of the American political vocabulary. Unfortunately, it worked well in 2004. The long time span when each Party's candidate will be known in advance of the general election will give "fear, smear and distortion" tactics time to disillusion more voters. This is not good for the mainstream voters of either Party, independent voters or American Democracy.
The American voter reacted badly against Republican "swift-boating" in 2006. Republicans using these tactics lost most of their races in 2006 with the notable exception of Republican Senator Corker in Tennessee. Republican smears along with serious race-baiting against Congressman Harold Ford were the main reasons Corker won. Republicans in 2008 will likely follow this example rather than learn from the national picture. Most Republican figures like President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Governor Perry (TX), Senator Lott (MS), Senator Sessions (AL), Senator Chambliss (GA), Senator Cornyn (TX), Speaker Hastert (IL), Congresswoman Foxx (NC), Congressman Pitts (PA), Congresswoman Blackburn (TN) and many others seem to be wedded to the "swift-boating" approach to politics.
The media created non-controversy over Senator Biden's comments about Senator Obama on the day Biden announced his Presidential candidacy shows why decisions about candidates should not be rushed. The current dust-up between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over comments made by David Geffen is another example of a media obsession with political personalities over political policies. The media is not very efficient in conveying the policy differences between candidates. Writing about personalities and tactics is easier and the media often takes that easy approach. Long campaigns are necessary to overcome the media bias against reporting on policy details.
Front-loading gives big money far more influence than it should have in a functional democratic process. The early withdrawal of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack because of this huge demand for early political money is unfortunate. Vilsack is a man of ideas. His candidacy would have been beneficial to the Democratic Party and American politics. His campaign was always facing very long odds. However, it was a positive factor because of the policy ideas Vilsack advocates. On issues from opposition to the Iraq War to energy independence, Vilsack is worth listening to and his Presidential campaign gave him a potentially important national vehicle to discuss them.
New faces and new ideas will have a more difficult time being heard in American politics because of Presidential campaign front-loading. Candidates besides the three frontrunners (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) have important ideas to offer. Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinch and the other candidates are all men of vision, experience and knowledge.
Ideas are driving the campaign of former US Senator Gravel. It is great to hear him speak boldly about issues.
He openly advocates ending the nonsense "War on Drugs" and legalizing marijuana. He says drug addiction is a public health issue and not a war. He wants a whole new approach that does not fill up jails with untreated addicts of heroin, cocaine, etc. He says not all illegal drugs are the same. He wants marijuana sold in liquor stores along with alcohol.
Gravel favors gay marriage. Gravel crusades aggressively against government secrecy. Look at his role as a US Senator during Vietnam! Who else offers such bold views?!? He opens up new policy ideas and broadens political discussion. This is very positive for the process.
The ideas of unsuccessful Democratic hopefuls like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinch were positive developments arising from the 2004 Presidential race. The Democratic Party would probably not have selected Dean as DNC Chair if he had not run in 2004. Dean and the rest of the Democratic National Committee adopted a real 50 state campaign strategy in 2006 as a result. We now have far more Democratic Governors, more Democratic state legislators and a Democratic Congress.
This writer wanted to wait until Vice President Gore made an absolutely final decision about becoming a candidate or not before making a final decision of who to support in 2008. I am now strongly backing former Senator and 2004 Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards because the process was moved forward and condensed. Edwards is the candidate talking about addressing issues that matter in the big picture like poverty, healthcare and middle-class economic opportunity. All the current Democratic Presidential aspirants are good choices and will be easy to support if they get the Democratic nomination.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.democraticTalkRadio.com .) Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com . Phone: 443-907-2367.
Feel free to publish without prior approval.
www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 12 comments |
|
Leadership or rudderless ship
I see the passionate talking points of Democrats, when campaigning. I also see the excuses that ,while in the minority they were helpless to stop the GOP juggernaut. Now I see that, in the majority, they are helpless to stop the GOP juggernaut. Helpless is as helpless does. While Howard Dean did indeed use the 50 state strategy to run a successful campaign, abetted of course by the slow turn of the voter from the agendised and rubber stamping GOP Legislature and the sickening abuse of our constitution by this administration, that is far fropm the whole story. Immediately upon achieving a victory of sorts, Emmanuel and Schumer began to criticise and diminish the achievments of Dean, probably to consolidate power for the conservative democratic leadership. After making assertive statements that she would slash the oil subsidies ands use that money for education and other sorely needed fundings Pelosi did no such thing! A paltry 2% cut , for an industry awash in profits is not my idea of slashing. Is it yours? My point is that it is long past time to look to the Democratic Party as the savior of this nation. I suggest that we all look much closer to home for that role, perhaps in the mirror. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 6:49:24 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: The grassroots is the Democratic Party
The members of Congress are members of the Party not the Party. The House is moving in the right direction on many issues. Pelosi is a leader not the absolute ruler of the House. Anyone judging the Congressional Democrats as failures already are certainly jumping to conclusions. This week, the House will vote on the Employee Free Choice Act. In the Senate, our margin will not overcome a filibuster by Republicans. We all need to get active in electing more populist Democrats in both chambers and to the Presidency. Our current control has blocked the awful flow of Bush Republican laws that were being passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was in power. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 7:52:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One opinion
Heres another. The Democratic Party is the DLC leadership that imposed a gag upon the progressive members in order to increase corporate donations, and they succeeded in doing both. I, frankly, am sick unto death of democratic loyalists using every lame reason in the book to make excuses for an excerable voting record and deafening silences when they should have stood and spoken with one voice on very, very important issues. Just the way you ignored my examples in my first response speaks volumes about your lack of vision and blind allegiance to a party that has let this nation down, time and again. You whimper that theyve been in power a short time, yet ignore the example I gave of their duplicity with the oil subsidy and the way the GOP is twisting them around their finger, blocking votes and threatening nuclear options. Odd that the Repugs can find ways to block that which they oppose yet the Dems, while a minority, claimed helplessness. Sorry but weve lost enough rights, Habeus Corpus, Posse Comitatus, and seen enough of Democratic complicity and duplicity for my taste. Your party has lost its way, its voice and its vision. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 6:35:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your comments are not relevant to the article content
The article is about the Presidential selection process and not about your anti-Democratic bias. I am not going to respond endlessly to this kind of nonsense. I think the Republican Right pays operatives to pretend to be so-called independents just to discourage the only effective opposition to the Republican Corporate agenda. In this article, I discuss how Republicans want to make politics nasty and negative in order to discourage voters with the process. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 7:45:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: your excuses are not relevant to the discussion at hand
Your article lauds the new faces within the campaign process as if they will alter the course of your party, they will not. You descend into idiocy, quite frankly, with your really childish refusal to answer my criticisms. Calling me an operative is only diminishing your own position and your value to this forum. I have over 1000 posts and four articles posted on this site that refute your absurd stance. It is very obvious , after falling back on the "to soon to criticise" card, when I note the actions ALREADY taken by this democratic congress that refute your position that it will make one damn bit of difference to this nation who the candidate is or how he/she is nominated. I raised valid and truthful points in defense of my position and I get sophomoric prattle from you in response. If loyal democrats cannot defend their party, cannot put up then perhaps you might shut up and think instead of speaking. Think a bit harder on why Pelosi panders to the oil companies, why repugs can place one obstacle after the next in front of the democratic majority yet , when in the minority themselves, democrats could only simper and drool. This nation is in dire peril, habeus corpus and posse comitatus are gone and you can only prattle that those who criticise are agents of the right. You are unfit for further discussion and apparently base your loyalties on air, smoke and mirrors...Bah ... by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 7:37:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Did you even read the article?
It criticizes the new process instead of laud it. You are off subject and wrong, as usual. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 5:48:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and you are an apologist for incompetence
and cannot refute thus you insult. Really childish of you. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 7:37:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Requested your comment be fagged
I stated a fact that you were off the subject of the column and the fact that you falsely stated the entire focus of the article. You are the one who again posted a personal insult while accusing me of doing so. I believe your comments should be removed by the moderator and your access to this site either cancelled or at least closely monitored. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 8:04:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Requested your comment be flagged
I stated a fact that you were off the subject of the column and the fact that you falsely stated the entire focus of the article. You are the one who again posted a personal insult while accusing me of doing so. I believe your comments should be removed by the moderator and your access to this site either cancelled or at least closely monitored. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 8:06:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Of course you do
Of course you do. As a dyed in the wool neoconservative democrat you understand only censorship and blind obedience, so sad for you not to understand the purpose of an oped forum..... by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 6:20:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What are you smoking?
You have obviously never bothered to read the 81 articles published here that I wrote. I support impeachment and have since 2001. Always opposed to the Iraq War. Support economic justice. Only a Republican troll pretending to be a progressive would be foolish enough to classify me as "neoconservative." This is a deliberate smear. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 7:08:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: so how does it feel
hypocrite. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2007 at 2:58:39 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
