|
|
Nov 11, 2006
more political ramblings In my previous entry, I made the statement that I’m fed up with politics here in the USA. But, I guess in the end politics are kind of like UK football: no matter how frustrating it gets, it looks like I’m going to stick with it in the long haul. I’ve been fascinated with politics and elections since the Reagan/Mondale election of 1984. I was in third grade. I remember on Election Day making a wager with one of my classmates on the election. I bet on Reagan, and he bet on Mondale. Of course, we had very little idea what the various political trends were or the results of any of the polls going into the election. I suppose if we had, there would have been no way the wager would have ever been made, since the result was never in any doubt. As Regan won in the biggest landslide ever, I won an addition 15 cents on that Wednesday morning. I went on to follow the major subsequent elections with great interest. I decided in grade school that I was a Republican, not because I agreed with or even knew any of any of their ideologies, but because my newfound political hero, Ronald Reagan, was a Republican. I remember watching the national conventions in 1988 with my dad, as Bush and Dukakis won their respective nominations. However, by 1992, I suppose my cynicism was starting to build. This was my junior year in high school, and we had a “mock election” at my school. We even had an actual voting machine that would be used in the real election a few weeks later. As the mock election came closer, I began to struggle with who I would vote for. Neither Bush nor Clinton nor Perot seemed like a good choice to lead our country. I walked into the voting booth not knowing who I would vote for. To the side of these three choices were eight more “niche” party candidates. I decided to vote for “none of the above” and hit the button for a random member of the eight minor candidates. The next year, I got to register to vote. This was pretty exciting for me, as some one as interested in the political process as I was. However, when it came time to choose a party, I again became conflicted. There were three choices: Democrat, Republican, and Independent. I wanted to be an Independent, but as principled a choice as that would have been for me, I knew ultimately that it was not a viable one. So, I knew I had to pick between Democrat and Republican. Would I go with the party that I grew up thinking I would join someday, the one that would piss off my mom? Ultimately, as someone living in central Kentucky, this option made no sense either. Keep in mind that this was the year that the Republicans took control of Congress. Kentucky is known as a “red” state now (which is quite overly simplistic, for reasons I may hit on later), but at the time, Democrats dominated the state and local levels of government, and may have held all six congressional seats (I would have to look that up. I know leading up to the 90’s, prior to the census, we had seven seats, and six were held by democrats, and that the one Republican ended up being gerrymandered out of his seat), and held one of the two senate seats. I remember growing up and local and state races were won in the Democratic primaries, including the governorship. As such, I decided to register Democrat so that I could vote in these all important primaries. Even still, I’m not a fan of either party, for many reasons that maybe I will touch on some other time. Instead, I guess my point is this: as I think about the recent election results, I approach it without some of the party baggage that many other commenters I’ve read have. Overall, in trying to make sense if it all, I’ve noticed a lot of hyperbole in many people’s analysis. Which, I suppose is natural. Because, it’s impossible to follow politics and be neutral on it. The only neutral people I know couldn’t even name 2 government officials. Even someone who is “moderate” like me has very strong political views. Anyway, as I analyze this 2006 election, I will do it by revisiting a post containing predictions that I made just a few days after the 2004 election. It’s pretty amazing how wrong I am on many of these. Prediction 1: Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time, or one of the worst. Basically, I was saying that there was not going to be any middle ground with Bush. He’s a guy who takes bold chances, and either he was going to be very successful or was going to fail brilliantly. Midterm verdict: WRONG This is what surprises me most: Bush’s second term has been extremely mediocre. It’s been a huge disappointment for me, for it was this lack of mediocrity that convinced me to vote for him. But, this term, the only thing that has happened is Iraq, and it hasn’t happened very well (though not the complete disaster some attempt to make it.) So, rather than good or bad, he’s headed right for the middle. Only here’s the thing: As I also have pointed out about Bush, he’s had one of the most challenging presidencies in some time. In his first term, I thought he did a brilliant job, but it didn’t look as brilliant since the world was such a messed up place. The world is still messed up, and if brilliant looks that bad in such a setting, imagine how mediocrity looks. Prediction 2: Kerry will hang around Basically, I predicted Kerry would have a shot at 2008 if he wanted it. Analysis: Not looking good He was close to making me look good on this one, right up until a couple of weeks ago, when he made a dumb joke. It was another one of those dumb statements that he tends to make, and then tries to play it off like we just don’t get it because we are too dumb. Regardless, the whole story was annoying, not because of his comment, but because it should have been a non-story. Yes it was tasteless, but not nearly as bad as the attention that it got. Bush should have simply said, “Yeah, Kerry’s a moron” and left it at that. But, not in today’s political climate, and I guess if you get an opportunity such as that handed to you, you have to jump on it. Regardless, Kerry’s done. Prediction 3: Cheney will not run in 2008 Analysis: Correct He won’t. Prediction 4: Edwards is done. Analysis: Correct Seriously, who has heard anything out of him in the last two years? Although I did read in USA today on Wednesday that he was one of the “winners” during this election, since apparently he helped get North Carolina’s minimum wage raised. It’s not enough, though. He’s done. Prediction 5: The Democrats STILL don’t get it. Prediction 6: The Republicans hold the House and Senate in 2006 Analysis: Right on 5, wrong on 6. And that’s the biggest, craziest story of this election. The reason the Democrats have been getting their butts kicked over the last 12 years is that they have not been a visionary party, but a reactive party. The Republicans have been the visionary party, and that’s why they have dominated. Only over the past 6 years, they have gotten fat, lazy, and sloppy. I don’t think this election was so much a referendum on Bush, as many have attempted to spin it, so much as it has reflected dissatisfaction over the various individuals who lost their spots. So many of them have been mediocre over the past few years. And many have flat out self destructed. There have been so many scandals involving Republicans over the past few months. One or two wouldn’t have sunk the party. The sum total of all of them did. But here’s the thing: This election was NOT and endorsement of the Democrats. And they don’t realize it at this point. And if they don’t, they are going to sink as quickly as they rose. Winning this year is the WORST thing that could have happened to them, because they weren’t ready to win yet. They are still another butt kicking away from realizing what they need to do. This will delay this process, and if they win the presidency in 2008, which despite all I’ve said is a distinct possibility, we will restart the cycle that began in 1992 (Democrats already have congress, win the presidency, lose Congress, then lose the presidency after 8 years, and maybe 4 this time.) Because I think the Republicans will wake up and do something big. Will the Democrats? Prediction 7: The primaries will be packed in 2008 Analysis: Probably. But, we won’t know for another year or so. But, in a year with no incumbent, this is typical. Especially since the VP won’t be running. Look for McCain and Giuliani to run on the Republican side, and probably 3-4 more The Democrats will throw a bunch of people out there. Prediction 8: Regardless of who wins the Democratic primary, Barack Obama will be the running mate. Analysis: Very likely Unless it is he who wins this primary. I didn’t think he would run, but he’s hinting at it. I hope he does. I haven’t been this excited about a presidential hopeful since McCain in 2000, before he imploded in that election. On one hand, I don’t think Obama has enough experience. On the other hand, I think that may be a good thing. I think too long in the senate may end up compromising him. Prediction 9: Jeb Bush/Condoleezza Rice defeat Hillary Clinton/Barrack Obama in 2008. Analysis: WRONG Neither Bush nor Rice will be involved in any way. Clinton/Obama has a very good chance of happening still. And who knows who will win. People say that Clinton doesn’t have a shot. She does, if the Republican’s don’t put up a viable candidate. The Republicans would make a big mistake if they underestimate her the way the Democrats have underestimated Bush during the last two elections. Prediction 10: After 08, the Democrats finally “Get It” Analysis: too early It really depends on what actually happens in 08. But, their win here definitely sets them back. A few other notes: I’m excited about having a female speaker of the house. I am not excited about having Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. My absolute favorite part of the Republicans losing control of congress is that Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky will NOT be Senate majority leader. And yes, he is one of my senators. That means I’ve followed him enough to not like him. And that’s my analysis of election 06. posted
by Unknown @ 2:21:00 AM |
