In real terms, there was nothing "Super" about Tuesday's multiple state primaries. The mainstream broadcast media stations were all revved up before and during the voting, trying to outdo one another with their number crunching and fearless forecasts, in an attempt to hook viewers to their analysis and to show off their expertise in guesswork. But it was a no-brainer really. Save for the temporary resurrection of Mike Huckabee in some states, it was a foregone conclusion. John McCain would be the Republican front runner. So what do we have? McCain is ahead, Huckabee re-appears, and Romney gets seriously clobbered. The Democrats, well, its still a statistical tie and still youth versus age, race versus gender, no matter how much they deny it. 
The hosts and their panel of "experts" were a sight to behold. They were at their rear's end trying to say something earth shattering and intelligent. The hosts were worse off, repeating what their panel says but in a faster vein to make it sound as if it was crucial to keep you glued to the "story". It was pathetic. Their projections too were so obvious yet they tried to pass this off as intelligent deductions. Super Duper Tuesday was more like Super Dopey Tuesday.
On the issue of divisiveness, elections are naturally divisive. McCain is still unacceptable to the conservatives, Romney is unacceptable to the Evangelicals,
Huckabee is unacceptable to the moderates. On issues, Romney leads in Economic concerns, McCain leads in Terrorism, and Huckabee and Romney split the party on the issue of immigration. For the democrats, the profile remains the same. Elderly voters, women, white voters, and Hispanics voted for Hillary; while black voters, youth voters, men and independents voted for Barack. Both divide the party, one on gender, the other on race; and both on generational lines.
The truth is, the Democratic contest is too complicated and is taking too long. Lucky for them the GOP primary is taking a little longer. However, it is going to wind up ahead of the Democrat primary, giving them more time to prepare their arsenal against the Democratic nominee in the general elections. What's worrisome for the Democrats is that the prolonged process may bore its party base and find themselves unprepared and unable to respond quickly, decisively and effectively versus the Republican wrecking machine.
This change battle cry by both surviving Democrat aspirants is beginning to sound like an over used cliche'. How will this change be achieved? Both candidates speak as if they can do it singlehandedly, which is a fallacy. Washington is populated by officials with diverse orientations and interests, and no singular agenda can be pushed without collaboration and quid pro quo. That's the snake pit and anyone who needs something will have to be infected by the venom of how things are done in there. Claiming the Change mantra is dishonest and untruthful, and both Barack and Hillary are guilty. They are running for the Presidency in a democratic form of government, and unless they change the system to a dictatorship, they cannot accomplish it alone. Thus, the most they can claim is to "Influence" change towards a particular direction. Yet in this scenario, race and gender will still come into play.
Hillary won on all states where the Kennedy's endorsed Obama. Does this mean that America's Royal Family is without clout and influence? Or is it because many Democrats dislike
the comparison between JFK and Barack? If true, could it be due to race? Men, black and white, voted for Barack. Could it be due to gender? America is still largely conservative and both these issues will come to the fore and influence the vote. The voters may raise so many reasons simply to hide the fact that they still have racist or sexist streaks they are unable to transcend, but can consciously deny.
The GOP establishment is also divided between Romney and McCain. If these divisions persist, Bloomberg may be tapped to be its candidate. If Hillary wins the Democrat nominations, the black votes may be won over by the GOP, especially the middle and upper class blacks who are disgusted with the Clintons' conjugal tactics. The youth and independent votes may also be won over to the Republicans who would reject a dynasty in America. The apparent trend is that the Clinton's are willing to barter the black votes for the Hispanics. For the GOP, there is momentum to move towards the center, and the segments awakened by Barack can be persuaded to shift to the GOP should Hillary get the nod.
For his part, Barack Obama should start talking specifics and desist from luring the youth with rhetorics that provide no solid means of attaining what he promises. Beautiful words are motherhood statements. He is surely qualified to speak from the Presidential pulpit since he can orate eloquently. Other than that, the direction remains hazy. Playing the pied piper to the youth is unfair. They are the ones attracted most by rhetoric, and Obama's style of politicking using rhetoric could ruin the interest and enthusiasm raised from these youthful voters when they realize how hard and frustrating it is to get any meaningful project done and done right. Disenchantment and alienation may result from a terrible disappointment when these inexperienced idealists, a generation too young to know the depth of its flaws, are exposed to the harsh realities of political involvement that can permanently damage their hope for a better America.
Haaarrrrwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
The hosts and their panel of "experts" were a sight to behold. They were at their rear's end trying to say something earth shattering and intelligent. The hosts were worse off, repeating what their panel says but in a faster vein to make it sound as if it was crucial to keep you glued to the "story". It was pathetic. Their projections too were so obvious yet they tried to pass this off as intelligent deductions. Super Duper Tuesday was more like Super Dopey Tuesday.
On the issue of divisiveness, elections are naturally divisive. McCain is still unacceptable to the conservatives, Romney is unacceptable to the Evangelicals,
Huckabee is unacceptable to the moderates. On issues, Romney leads in Economic concerns, McCain leads in Terrorism, and Huckabee and Romney split the party on the issue of immigration. For the democrats, the profile remains the same. Elderly voters, women, white voters, and Hispanics voted for Hillary; while black voters, youth voters, men and independents voted for Barack. Both divide the party, one on gender, the other on race; and both on generational lines.The truth is, the Democratic contest is too complicated and is taking too long. Lucky for them the GOP primary is taking a little longer. However, it is going to wind up ahead of the Democrat primary, giving them more time to prepare their arsenal against the Democratic nominee in the general elections. What's worrisome for the Democrats is that the prolonged process may bore its party base and find themselves unprepared and unable to respond quickly, decisively and effectively versus the Republican wrecking machine.
This change battle cry by both surviving Democrat aspirants is beginning to sound like an over used cliche'. How will this change be achieved? Both candidates speak as if they can do it singlehandedly, which is a fallacy. Washington is populated by officials with diverse orientations and interests, and no singular agenda can be pushed without collaboration and quid pro quo. That's the snake pit and anyone who needs something will have to be infected by the venom of how things are done in there. Claiming the Change mantra is dishonest and untruthful, and both Barack and Hillary are guilty. They are running for the Presidency in a democratic form of government, and unless they change the system to a dictatorship, they cannot accomplish it alone. Thus, the most they can claim is to "Influence" change towards a particular direction. Yet in this scenario, race and gender will still come into play.
Hillary won on all states where the Kennedy's endorsed Obama. Does this mean that America's Royal Family is without clout and influence? Or is it because many Democrats dislike
the comparison between JFK and Barack? If true, could it be due to race? Men, black and white, voted for Barack. Could it be due to gender? America is still largely conservative and both these issues will come to the fore and influence the vote. The voters may raise so many reasons simply to hide the fact that they still have racist or sexist streaks they are unable to transcend, but can consciously deny.The GOP establishment is also divided between Romney and McCain. If these divisions persist, Bloomberg may be tapped to be its candidate. If Hillary wins the Democrat nominations, the black votes may be won over by the GOP, especially the middle and upper class blacks who are disgusted with the Clintons' conjugal tactics. The youth and independent votes may also be won over to the Republicans who would reject a dynasty in America. The apparent trend is that the Clinton's are willing to barter the black votes for the Hispanics. For the GOP, there is momentum to move towards the center, and the segments awakened by Barack can be persuaded to shift to the GOP should Hillary get the nod.
For his part, Barack Obama should start talking specifics and desist from luring the youth with rhetorics that provide no solid means of attaining what he promises. Beautiful words are motherhood statements. He is surely qualified to speak from the Presidential pulpit since he can orate eloquently. Other than that, the direction remains hazy. Playing the pied piper to the youth is unfair. They are the ones attracted most by rhetoric, and Obama's style of politicking using rhetoric could ruin the interest and enthusiasm raised from these youthful voters when they realize how hard and frustrating it is to get any meaningful project done and done right. Disenchantment and alienation may result from a terrible disappointment when these inexperienced idealists, a generation too young to know the depth of its flaws, are exposed to the harsh realities of political involvement that can permanently damage their hope for a better America.
Haaarrrrwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
8 comments:
it certainly sounds like a lot of cooks stirring the broth over there Durano...
I'm afraid my interest in politics (and the messes that they cause) waned when my Mother's cousin was ousted out of Australian politics over here...in fact she wrote a book about it that exposed a lot of the corruption that exists within political parties...
Hello Kim,
There is no perfect system that can be created by imperfect men. And because of their predisposition to advance their personal interests,the imperfect system is compounded by corruption.
This is why people's involvement is critical, to call attention to the needs of the governed and not merely to focus on enriching themselves. It's like saying everyone can be corrupted, especially those that want to achieve much for their constituencies. A totally noble and incorruptible person will not survive in politics. That's why your Mother's cousin was probably ousted.
There are many good things a lot of people can do outside politics, but the politicians are still needed to move the system towards these good things.
The cycle is vicious, getting jaded or tainted is always possible. That's why it is critical to think twice about any request or decision, and any move or action. I guess I've lived long enough to look closer a second time at things I was most certain of the first time.
Have a very nice and sunny day! --Durano, done!
Politicians are one of the worst breeds of people. Sometimes though, they are a necessary evil.
My sentiments exactly, Immortal. The question is, why is evil necessary to do good? Does evil have to exist to prove that good is better? Or should we discuss this philosophical question at some other time? :-) --Durano, done
The adult industry seems to be in favor of Clinton. Who will you want to win, Durano? :D
Luigi,
This is again a choice of lesser evils and I hate selecting from such a choice.
On the other hand, I had mentioned in some post a while back that whoever wins, we get the same repugnant deal.
I leave it up to its citizens whom they will make President. We are only concerned in terms of how their avowed policies will affect us and what we need to work around these to accomplish what we must.
--Durano, done!
I'm afraid that there isn't going to be a Republican president this time around. Realistically speaking, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats in the big electoral states and those illustrious citizens are bedazzled by Dem candidates who speak in platitudes and promise them the moon. We are going to have to wait for 2012, when presumably the Dem administration and congress will have so screwed up the country so much that even the dolts who fall for their baloney will be ready for a genuine change.
Hi DD2,
There is something in your choice of words that really amuses me, and the way these are phrased.:-)
Romney is suspending his candidacy, what does that mean? Will he focus on the convention?
Mike Huckabee will not make it, as I said before, because his constituency is too small. It's going to be John McCain for the Republicans, whom you say is not really a Republican in the conservative sense.
I agree with you. McCain as the GOP nominee is not a Republican. Like Rudy Giuliani, both are Republican aberrations. However, if the Democrats make hell of America, four years of this is enough to get the "dolts who fall for their baloney" to vote them out of a re-election.
Like I mentioned in the post, they are both guilty of unfairly claiming change, and Barack has continuously used rhetoric to attract the youth; like the Pied Piper leading the mice to the river. This is a dangerous tact. Should he win and can't make good on all he promised, the Democrats may be out of the White House for 16 years. --Durano, done!
Post a Comment