Weighing in on the precious process
There are a number of too-easy to make comments reagarding this Presidential election season. One is that the Presidential Primaries have been moved way too early, are encroaching onto the 2007 calendar year, and is likely to lead to this long, long, long election campaign. Indeed. I recall seeing an editorial arguring for Oregon to move its primary up to be more relevant to the presidential process. A horrible idea if there ever was one, the jig is up and all we can do is let us keep a sane election for our series of state and local elections, and not contribute to the new electoral process.
The other was brought up by the Oregonian’s resident Republican editorial writer — as opposed to the Democratic editorial writer — today. It is the opinion that we should somehow winnow the presidential candidates down now NOW NOW I say. Which works against the grain of the other problem: it is super urgent that we only entertain Giuliani, McCain, Romney — and probably only a couple of them — and that we only entertain Clinton and Obama. Why? Because hearing Trancredo chaffes at us. Because hearing Kucinich chaffes at us. Because hearing Ron Paul chaffes at us. Because hearing Mike Gravel — who I suspect is about to be let go to John Cox status — chaffes at us.
Ron Paul is instructive. He offered an opinion contrary to that held by everyone else on the stage. It is somehow the issue that most cleanly divides the parties — witness the Michigan political bosses circulating a petition to snuff Paul out of the debates and a renewed primary focus (as though it is about to get anywhere further than the renewed primary threat of 2006), and compare it to the apostacy of Lieberman for the Democratic Party. (Drummed out, thankfully, but face it: without the war issue, the party grassroots would suck in their dislike for Lieberman’s tedious DLC-ism, and accept him… much as they do a handful of other politicians.)
Without Ron Paul, the debate would have been tedious. As with Gravel at that Democratic debate.
The basic problem, dear Dave Reinhard, is this: you do know that this is 2007, right? The election is some years away (one and a half is plural, right? If we are stuck with this prolonged process, we may as well have a host of these “second tier” and “third tier” candidates blurring the precious “process.”
May 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Regarding your thought that the Presidential candidate field should be winnowed, I believe your duty is to winnow the field with your own able mind, and lacking that, you, yourself, should surrender to your weakness.
May 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Reviewing this blog entry to see how the miscommunication happened that allowed you to see me as arguring for a “winnowing” of candidates, I can only shrug my shoulder. It’s not that I sometimes am not clear, but in this case I see myself as clear enough.