WASHINGTON -- Now this is progress for you and all brought to a
grateful nation by the political party that considers progress its
specialty. If the pollsters are to be believed, the public-spirited
citizenry of Iowa and New Hampshire are about to give the
Democratic Party its presidential candidate for 2004. At least that
handful of Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire willing to trudge to
their caucuses or voting booths is going to decide the nominee.
I have no doubt that these worthy citizens have a deep knowledge
of the art and science of politics. Yet as mistrustful as the
Democratic spellbinders heading the party have been lo these many
years of "special interests" and other "elites," it is somewhat
surprising that they now acquiesce so meekly in handing their
party's nominating process over to a small group of party stalwarts
in the Hawkeye and Granite states. Where are the blacks? Where are
the Latinos? What about the gays? These are the suffering
situations for whom the Democratic Party has such famous
solicitude. All are shockingly underrepresented in the
aforementioned Democratic precincts.
After two generations of haranguing the "smoke filled room," the
"party bosses," the "state organization," and almost anyone with
any brains about political organization, the Democrats have so
reformed their nominating process that, to coin a phrase, "As Iowa
and New Hampshire Go, So Goes the Democratic Party." I suggest the
Democratic National Committee move its headquarters this year from
Washington to Des Moines, next year to Manchester, and then back to
Des Moines or perhaps to Cedar Rapids.
And behold the field now competing in those idyllic purlieus.
The apparent frontrunners are Dr. Howard Dean; General Wesley Clark
(the party's Wendell Willkie), Senator John Pierre Kerry (who, lest
you forget, served in Vietnam) Senator John Edwards (who, lest you
forget, wore rags until becoming a multi-millionaire by lawyering
misery), and Messrs. Gephardt and Lieberman -- the only two
candidates who remotely approximate those previous Democratic
presidential candidates who actually went on to lead the nation
with a semblance of success or dignity.
Democratic politics has become the only socially accepted avenue
for public displays of personal wrath. All the leading Democratic
candidates are really angry and they are appealing for the vote of
those who are really angry. They have their disagreements, but all
agree that urgent measures must be taken to alleviate the dreadful
mess George Bush has made of the country. After their united and
quite stirring public displays of anger, the Democratic contenders
collapse into buffoonery.
I cannot recall a field of candidates caught so often in
contradiction. General Clark, the Democrat, denounces President
Bush and denies any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Then it
is discovered that he voted for Republican Presidents, praised the
President fulsomely for his leadership, and in public in October of
2002 said, "Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda." Dr. Howard Dean denounces the Administration's
"unilateralism." Now USA Today has produced a missive from
the country doc urging "unilateralism" on President Bill Clinton.
Was Senator John Pierre Kerry accurate when he told feminists that
his first vote in the Senate was pro-abortion? Non pas,
Monsieur, your first vote opposed a Reagan Administration
military initiative.
After noting the contradictions we might note the lies. Just for
starters there is Doctor Howard Dean claiming his brother served in
the military. There is General Clark claiming he opposed the Iraq
war. There is Senator Kerry…well, it was something about his
Irishness or lack of Irishness or an Irish coffee he had in Vietnam
-- the double-talk of these magnificoes gets confusing.
How are we to explain the clownishness of this field of
political worthies? My answer is that they are political
careerists, not politicians motivated by convictions. They have
during their political lives -- Clark's admittedly being a short
one -- said whatever was expedient at the time. When anti-war
candidates Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern campaigned in New
Hampshire against war, no pro-war statements from them could be
unearthed. But now even the hottest aspirant to the anti-war title
has been exposed as an advocate of "unilateralism." It is time for
Iowa and New Hampshire to speak and quiet these oafs for a few
months.
topics:
Bill Clinton, Abortion, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO
