September 1, 2006
Leave it to the Democrats to tinker with the primary system and change it … and not for the better.
Why do the states of Nevada and South Carolina need to be added to an already crowded early primary and caucus schedule?
Do the Democrats want a presidential nominee chosen by the end of January 2008? Shouldn’t there be a try-out period before going to the big stage? Why does the primary season have to be so front-loaded? We will choose a candidate before most of the American public has even focused on the campaign.
Democrats are always trying to appeal to everyone and in the end they appeal to no one in particular. They need to stand for something and stop being a “pander bear” as Democratic presidential candidates in the past have been called.
Do the Democrats want to attract gamblers - is that why they chose Nevada? Of course not. They want diversity. And, it seems, Iowa and New Hampshire are not diverse enough for the Democratic decisionmakers.
As David Broder wrote in his excellent column in The Washington Post yesterday, the Democrats have produced a “dysfunctional primary calendar” for 2008.
The Democratic Party should be lengthening the primary schedule rather than putting more primaries up front. Candidates grow and mature under the pressure of primaries and they shouldn’t be reduced to a one hundred yard dash. Voters would learn more about each candidate if the primaries were more like a marathon. We need time to see how each candidate does under pressure over a lengthy primary season. We need candidates to prove themselves over time and not be figures running by in the night as they catch another plane to another primary and caucus state. The American voter actually is the loser in the Democratic plan to be more diverse.
What will happen as the result of this condensed schedule is that the American voter will know who the candidates are for president by March of 2008 and by April of 2008 we will be tired of the GOP and Democratic candidates. We will be bored by the candidates by early summer.
And what will happen? A wealthy individual like Ross Perot in the 1990s will emerge as an Independent candidate for president. This Mr. or Mrs. X will appear more dynamic and interesting than the two major party candidates who we are now already tired of seeing and hearing. And the new candidate in the race will generate the new political buzz. Mr. or Mrs. X will not win the presidency but it will be a distortion of the political process just as the Democratic Party’s attempts to front-load the primary process is a distortion that does not need to happen.
Being a “pander bear” didn’t work for presidential candidates Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and they won’t make the Democratic presidential candidate any more appealing by letting more “diverse” voters in South Carolina and Nevada vote in the early caucuses and primaries.
Democrats, please spend more time coming up with a coherent policy for Iraq, Iran and the Middle East and the War on Terror. Quit trying to be so politically correct. Not every special interest group in the country needs to support you. The mark of leadership and of a successful presidential candidate is taking a stand on tough issues that actually bother some groups.
Watch out, Mr. or Mrs. X is waiting in the wings and will appear as a presidential candidate in late summer of 2008. And, because we will be tired of the “old” candidates chosen quickly in the early primaries we will give someone outside the political process their fifteen minutes of fame.
Who will benefit from having an early Nevada caucus and an early South Carolina primary? The most apparent winner at this point would seem to be John Edwards but a lesser known candidate will now most likely literally take up residence in one or both of these states to try and generate the “Big Mo”.
Democrats, please come up with workable ideas on the issues and give up these “pander bear” politically correct fixes for the 2008 presidential campaign schedule. |
