Make Primaries Secondary In 2008
In this 1992 photo provided by Phan Thi Kim Phuc shows her, top row second from right, and her husband Bui Huy Toan, top row right, with guests during their wedding day in Havana, Cuba. It only took a second for Associated Press photographer Nick Ut to snap the iconic black-and-white image of her after a napalm attack in 1972. It communicated the horrors of the Vietnam War in a way words could never describe, helping to end one of America's darkest eras. But beneath the photo lies a lesser-known story. It's the tale of a dying child brought together by chance with a young photographer. A moment captured in the chaos of war that would serve as both her savior and her curse on a journey to understand life's plan for her. (AP Photo/Courtesy Phan Thi Kim Phuc)
This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
The pre-primary season that ends Thursday began November 8, 2006, the day after the midterm elections. That 14-month season of cynicism served to diminish all candidates in both parties, insult the common sense of the electorate and hold the federal government hostage. As Ronald Reagan used to say about big government, big campaigns aren't the solution, they're the problem.
If our country were in its right mind, any office-seeker willing to submit to this un-American process would be, should be disqualified from high office.
The pre-primary process has not produced clear leaders or sharpened the nation's understanding of its challenges. It has shown that an African-American can run a credible pre-primary campaign in the Democratic Party, which isn't trivial. I can't find another virtue.
The sole remaining, albeit pathetic, justification of long campaigns is that they test the mettle and stamina of the candidates. Please. The stamina to shake every hand in New Hampshire? The mettle to repeatedly distort trivial aspects of other people's records and lives? Passing such tests is no honor.
The few regular readers of this column know where I am headed.
There might be choices beyond the two parties that have had a lock on political power since 1860. It would be a good thing for the country if a third party or independent candidate makes a run in 2008. The only potential for a great change in the direction and competence of the federal government will come if the two parties lose the White House for awhile.
For those reasons, I am much more interested in what happens on January 7 in Oklahoma than in Iowa or New Hampshire.
On that day, a bunch of political has-beens will gather to ponder ways to counter the hyper-partisanship of the times and the civic sclerosis caused by 23-month presidential campaigns. Those has-beens are some of the pragmatic, skilled legislators who kept the United States Senate functional and honorable in the 1980s and 1990s: Democrats David Boren, Sam Nunn and Charles Robb; Republicans John Danforth, William Cohen and Chuck Hagel.
Of course, competence was soooooo 20th century.
Third Way fantasists hope that the Okie Cabal will hook up with Unity '08, the group that intends to have an online primary to select a trans-partisan ticket for November. Count me in.
The smart money says modern history has relentlessly proven third party candidates can't win. The smart money says Bloomberg won't run because he can't win. The smart money says bucking the two-party duopoly is Quixotic and that smart people read and write infinite stories about the same two parties for their whole lives.
I am pulling for the dumb money.
Political parties are among the least respected institutions in America. Partisanship is a term of insult. Political celebrities generate their recognition in spite of their parties. The parties' power comes from habit. That is not an insurmountable foundation.
A third party ticket in '08 will avoid the cat-fighting of the pre-primaries and primaries. It can be the first modern independent race that has more funding than the parties. A Bloomberg-Nunn or Bloomberg-Hagel ticket could win with a plurality of the votes. The Third Way should also run candidates for the Senate and statehouses.
If this doesn't happen, the next four years will be only cosmetically different than the past 40 years, what historians will call the Post-Watergate Period of Partisan Failure.
I'm going with the dumb money.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. The pre-primary season that ends Thursday began November 8, 2006, the day after the midterm elections. That 14-month season of cynicism served to diminish all candidates in both parties, insult the common sense of the electorate and hold the federal government hostage. As Ronald Reagan used to say about big government, big campaigns aren't the solution, they're the problem.
If our country were in its right mind, any office-seeker willing to submit to this un-American process would be, should be disqualified from high office.
The pre-primary process has not produced clear leaders or sharpened the nation's understanding of its challenges. It has shown that an African-American can run a credible pre-primary campaign in the Democratic Party, which isn't trivial. I can't find another virtue.
The sole remaining, albeit pathetic, justification of long campaigns is that they test the mettle and stamina of the candidates. Please. The stamina to shake every hand in New Hampshire? The mettle to repeatedly distort trivial aspects of other people's records and lives? Passing such tests is no honor.
The few regular readers of this column know where I am headed.
There might be choices beyond the two parties that have had a lock on political power since 1860. It would be a good thing for the country if a third party or independent candidate makes a run in 2008. The only potential for a great change in the direction and competence of the federal government will come if the two parties lose the White House for awhile.
For those reasons, I am much more interested in what happens on January 7 in Oklahoma than in Iowa or New Hampshire.
On that day, a bunch of political has-beens will gather to ponder ways to counter the hyper-partisanship of the times and the civic sclerosis caused by 23-month presidential campaigns. Those has-beens are some of the pragmatic, skilled legislators who kept the United States Senate functional and honorable in the 1980s and 1990s: Democrats David Boren, Sam Nunn and Charles Robb; Republicans John Danforth, William Cohen and Chuck Hagel.
Of course, competence was soooooo 20th century.
The star power in Oklahoma next week will be provided by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who could finance a national campaign and a 50-state ballot-access program from his household checking account. If anyone can make an independent run instantly credible, it's Bloomberg.
Third Way fantasists hope that the Okie Cabal will hook up with Unity '08, the group that intends to have an online primary to select a trans-partisan ticket for November. Count me in.
The smart money says modern history has relentlessly proven third party candidates can't win. The smart money says Bloomberg won't run because he can't win. The smart money says bucking the two-party duopoly is Quixotic and that smart people read and write infinite stories about the same two parties for their whole lives.
I am pulling for the dumb money.
Political parties are among the least respected institutions in America. Partisanship is a term of insult. Political celebrities generate their recognition in spite of their parties. The parties' power comes from habit. That is not an insurmountable foundation.
A third party ticket in '08 will avoid the cat-fighting of the pre-primaries and primaries. It can be the first modern independent race that has more funding than the parties. A Bloomberg-Nunn or Bloomberg-Hagel ticket could win with a plurality of the votes. The Third Way should also run candidates for the Senate and statehouses.
If this doesn't happen, the next four years will be only cosmetically different than the past 40 years, what historians will call the Post-Watergate Period of Partisan Failure.
I'm going with the dumb money.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
Don''t you think that is a bit of a stretch, firegrad? I guess the possibility that the majority of voters might feel she is better qualified than anyone the Republicans have to offer seems impossible to you. The fact that you have to construct such a cause/effect fantasy suggests you need some work on your intellectual processes.
Communism failed because it was a failed system, not because Reagan or HW had anything to do with it. To believe otherwise is to believe that communism EVER had a chance of being successful. It succeeds only when it turns to capitalism (China) or when it''s a dictatorship (Cuba).
Clinton left us a lot better off than George Jr. is going to do. If you''re obsessed with his *** life, that''s YOUR problem, not his. Bush Sr. should have stayed home and raised sons with some essence of competence and morality.
I''''ll "pass" on 3rd parties, thank you!" - Posted by Quatrops
I don''t hate the third party concept, but here''s the worst example of a 3rd party candidate ruining it for us...In 1992, Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote, mostly from President George H.W. Bush, one of the most honorable men to run this nation this century, and gave it to Slick Willy and his cackling, unprincipled bride Hill. Had it not been for Ross Perot, we wouldn''t have to worry today whether the cackling botox flip-flopping Hillary will be our next president and the presidency that dominated the 1990''s probably wouldn''t best be remembered for a chubby intern named Monica and her size 16 blue dress with a stain on it. One of the men who orchestrated the fall of communism could have benefited from the victory over communism rather than Slick Willy who just inherited it thanks to Perot.
I''ll "pass" on 3rd parties, thank you!
Which candidates are Freemasons?
Why are there mystical Masonic symbols on our dollar bills?
Which past Presidents were Freemasons and how did it affect their policy/decision-making?
Posted by juwboy
Methinks his tinfoil hat is on too tight....
The recall/runoff election for Governor in California was a real statement against 2 party politics, the traditional ''feeder'' system of nominating candidates, and traditional (and oftentimes negative) campaigning. People were furious that gov. surplus-to-deficit Gray Davis got re-elected after waging a viciously dirty campaign against his Bush-eque failed-savings-and-loan/well-connected RepubliCON challenger. What makes Gov. Schwarzenegger''s re-call win notable is the fact that he never would have won the party''s nomination under the traditional system, but people were much happier to have him running than the guys the Republicans wanted to nominate, and Democrats were much happier to have him running than the guys the Democrats wanted to nominate. The recall/run-off just looked kooky because ppl like Gary Coleman were on the ticket and actually got votes.
The difference with a Hagel/Bloomberg ticket is that both those guys could have run for a party''s nom. However, I don''t think either would have been much more successful than the ppl we have now - Bloomberg''s not much different than Rudy.
Independents kind of alarm me because I guess Ross Perot and that Green party candidate, what''s his name didn''t emerge as true alternative choices but rather divided one party''s vote. This ultimately thwarted the will of the majority rather than furthered it.
The country''s alarmingly divided into red/blue, Repub/Dem, urban/rural. It''d be great if all the centrists chose to vote for the independents, maybe the entrenched divisions would be better addressed at this time by electing a unifier. An Obama/Bloomberg ticket completely nullifies Rudy and Mitt''s comparative advantages, and a cabinet with including the Govenator would in effect be independent.
One can dream of 3rd party politics, but in practice this might be the way to go at this time (?)
PS ***, can we have a bigger comment limit? :D
Meyer would rather have a candidate that nominates himself- when''s his contract up at CBS? Must be looking for a job with Bloomberg...
As far as his supposed "great change in ... direction" - I hardly think that list of passed-by washed up political loosers constitutes a ground swell for anything but their egos- Sam Nunn a board member of: Chevron Corporation, Coca-Cola Company, Dell Computer, General Electric Co.David Boren is regarded as a mentor to former CIA Director George Tenet from his days as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Boren and Tenet were having breakfast together when Tenet was called away to respond to the terror attacks.
William Cohen is on the Board of Directors of insurer AIG, and is a Chairman Emeritus of the US-Taiwan Business Council. An made an abrupt transition to the business of Washington lobbying within "weeks of leaving office." He''s lobbying for multninationals you can read on his own web site: "Discover how we can support your efforts in India." "Learn more about our expanding China Practice." "Read about our new offices in Beijing and Tianjin." http://www.cohengroup.net/ etc, ad nausem- This is who Meyer trusts as opposed to the voters of the USA- oh well
I don''t like that idea.
I remember when D_ick Meyer was foaming about John McCain as a wonderful moderate candidate.
D_ick Meyer''s rhetorical trick is to claim he is in the center of every discussion.
But he is actually consistently on the right and his ideas are usually bad for those of us on the left and good for those on the right.