I’m beginning to think that anybody who looked at our country as an example of democracy in action would quickly reach the conclusion that it’s a very bad idea. Our election process has become a farce, and it’s hard to say who is dumber, the news media who are dishing out crap, or the population which is letting them get away with it. The presidential race was bad enough before Wesley Clark jumped in, but now it’s gone way beyond ludicrous.
I’ve been frustrated for a long time that my favorite candidate, Dennis Kucinich, isn’t getting any press. Of course, it’s sort of a chicken/egg situation. The press is ignoring him because he’s low in the polls, and he’s low in the polls because he isn’t getting any attention. Until last week, the press was fawning over Dean as the “progressive” candidate, ignoring the fact that Kucinich has taken bolder stands on many issues than Dean. A Kucinich supporter in Iowa summed it up best, saying “A Dean supporter is a Democrat who hasn’t heard Dennis speak”. Having been fortunate enough to have heard Dennis speak at a rally in Lexington in March, I’m a believer. But too many people aren’t getting the opportunity to hear him speak, or even see him quoted in the press, because the mainstream media love Dean.
At least they used to love Dean. Now they have a new fair-haired boy, Wesley Clark, aka the Bomber of Belgrade. And why do they love him so much? They love to gush about a five-star general who is an “anti-war” candidate. Clark? Anti-war? The guy who was fired from his post as NATO commander because he almost started World War III … between countries that were allies!! Do your flippin homework, guys!! Read Clark’s own words in the London Times:
Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. … The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call. …President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.
And the press is pumping this guy up as an anti-war candidate!! Sure, he claims to be opposed to the war now, now that it’s too late to do anything except try to figure out if there’s any way at all to reconstruct a country whose destruction he supported at the time. But he wasn’t anti-war back when he could have made a difference. And even now, he’s having trouble getting his story straight. He still can’t even make up his mind whether he would have voted for the war if he had been in Congress at the time; one day he says yes, the next day he says no. And the press continues to gush about how he’s transforming the race with his bold stands. C’mon guys, do your jobs. At least show him his own words from a few months ago. Remind him that he told CNN: “But just assuming that we’re here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations.” At least ask him when and why he changed his mind, from being a cheerleader for the war to an “opponent”.
And what’s with all his supporters? Despite what he would like people to believe, he didn’t just suddenly jump into the race. He’s been carefully building his campaign for quite a while. Why have all these people been jumping on his bandwagon for months? He doesn’t have any positions on any issues except the Iraq war, and he has several different positions on that one. So are the people who were supporting him when he was preaching for war still supporting him now that he’s preaching against it? What is it that gets people into such a frenzy over a personality when they have no idea who or what he really is? He didn’t even decide until very recently which party he wanted to claim, although he’s admitted to supporting Republican presidential candidates in the past. But now he claims to be everything the Democratic party stands for: “I am pro-choice. I am pro-affirmative action. I am pro-environment, pro-health.” Easy enough to say, with no track record, and no specific proposals. (And does anybody, even Bush, claim to be anti-environment or anti-health, even if he is?)
And don’t even get me started on California. Schwarzenegger for governor? Since he refuses to talk about issues, can any of his supporters say why they suppport him? And can you imagine the heat the “liberal press” would give a Democratic candidate with his history? I recently told a Republican friend that I had an idea for a new anti-drug ad: Bill Clinton saying “I didn’t inhale; I didn’t have sex with that woman”, voiceover “This is Bill Clinton”, Arnold saying “I smoked pot and gang-banged women in the gym”, voiceover “This is Bill Clinton on steroids”.