As more hapless Democrats jumped into the Presidential pool this weekend, so as not to be left behind, I reflected on the candidates for whom I've voted in the past.
To my way of thinking, no candidate for whom I've voted has ever had my unqualified trust, confidence, or enthusiasm. It's always been a 'lesser of two or three evils' thing.
It started when I first voted for Jimmy Carter. Talk about mistakes! I thought he was smarter than Ford, and, being young, was sucked in and gulled by his naive promises of egalitarianism. Instead, we got the shame of the Iranian episode- 444 days of it, was it not? And a Chief Executive who insisted on scheduling the White House tennis courts himself, and brought with a small-minded crew of charlatans, the likes of whom we only saw again carrying Bill Clinton's (carpet) bags.
Rather than trust either Reagan, or Carter, I voted for John Anderson. He was a Representative from my home state, a likable, sensible guy. And, at the time, I thought it worthwhile to endorse a third-party option. Did I believe any of these candidates were the 'best' in the Republic? Never.
Same with 1984. I was pleased with Reagan, and my vote was a no-brainer. But happy? No. Same in 1988. I liked Bush, and I despised and distrusted Dukakis. But I found myself saddened to think that these two were the best we could produce for the most influential free nation on earth.
Dole v. Clinton? How sad can you get? A guy whose motto is, "I've waited long enough and fed at the Senate trough all these years, it's my turn," versus a self-admitted philanderer who used his high office to obstruct justice. How much worse could it possibly get?
Well, you get the idea. I don't think we ever get a choice between two really 'great' candidates. And that's not about to change this year, either.
The Democrats offer up as many flavors of minorities as they can muster. I'm enjoying the uneasy predicament of many of my liberal acquaintances and friends, as they dither,
'Gee.....vote for the black, or vote for the female.....or the spanish-speaking guy?....all are minorities, in their way.....but...but.....I have to choose!......what will I do?'
Then you have their reject pile- Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and maybe even the 'ol original Clinton. All feel they were wronged, or deserve another chance, or, in Clinton's case, simply don't get it that 8 years of anyone is more than enough nowadays.
The Republicans, while focused on experience and character, rather than unidimensional victimhood (a/k/a minority membership), still can't seem to produce a really complete, trustworthy conservative.
McCain is not so bright, too self-impressed and pompous, and way too 'moderate' to be trusted. Giuliani is also a good deal more liberal than advertised, but at least he's very experienced in actually making government work on a large scale, plus has major chops for crisis management.
Romney is also an experienced manager and leader, but has already drunk the Kool-Aid on health care reform. And he had so much promise!
Which leads me to my conclusion. It's not really the program a President espouses that matters. Even Clinton and Carter couldn't ram their agendas through their own Houses and Senates. Even the candidate's position on topics like abortion or stem cell research pales in comparison to running the Federal government.
No, what the American people tend to do is elect the person whom they believe has the character, fortitude, and maybe experience, to effectively handle the next unexpected, but anticipated, unknown crisis.
And in that sense, we've been pretty well-served. George Bush has shown remarkable skill and aplomb at handling his crisis. So did Reagan. Clinton didn't do so well with his- the Monica affair. Carter failed abysmally with both energy policy and Iran. But, on balance, the country tends to err on the side of typically choosing the more appropriate candidate in any given year.
And given our challenging times, I think that will be true in 2008, as well. So, no Obama bin Baden, and no Hillary. America is ready to elect a black or a woman, but not "that" black, nor "that" woman. One is too inexperienced, the other simply carries too much weird baggage of her own making, plus has absolutely no executive experience on her long, lawyerly resume.
It should be a fun-filled, enjoyable next 22 months of free political presidential comedy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I had someone recently insisting to me that Cheney was going to run for President and be the Party's nominee. He was so convinced of this that he wanted to bet me.
I can't see it. In the perception game that is Presidential politics, Cheney comes off as mean-spiritied and vaguely sleazy. Toss in the health issues, the eight years in Washington already, the very close association with the Iraq War, the odd shotgun blast to a buddy's face and well, Cheney might be the only prominent Republican Hilary has a fighting chance against.
I don't know who exactly the Republicans will come up with. McCain I suppose is a likely choice. For me he's tough to like -- his blatant media-whoring comes off as ant-Presidential.
Guiliani I have a feeling won't "play well in Peoria" as it were and has been prone to the Howard Dean-style blow up in the past. And as you point out many of the true believers in the GOP are going to find Rudy tough to fully embrace.
The Democrats seem intent on nominating Hilary at this point, assuming Obama has the good sense to sit this one out, build his resume, and watch Hilary's Charge of the Light (-Weight) Brigade. As you noted, Edwards, et al., are not likely to be well-received. It seems to be Hilary's nomination to lose at this point. But it's very early, of course.
For sheer entertainment value a Rudy vs. Hiilary campaign is the one to root for -- the evening news would be daily can't-miss. Whether such a campaign would result in the country getting a truly good President is another matter.
Post a Comment