As we head into the 2008 election, it is important to look back at the politics of Washington and forward in deciding who we should elect as President. The sad truth is that our politicians have been engaged in some of the fiercest partisan battles ever. The Democrats lost control of congress in 1994 after 40 years in power, and had been anxious to gain it back. The Republicans, thrilled at having control, used their new found authority to feather their own nest. Lost in the struggle were the real needs of the nation and the will and desire of the American people. This partisanship has come at a very inopportune moment in history, when the so called "peace dividend" gained by the ending of the cold war disappeared with the rise of terrorism and the attack on the World Trade Center.
Why is it that our politicians cannot set aside the partisan ideology for the sake of the nation? The answer, not surprisingly, is vanity, power, money, and an apparent lack of conviction to any real principle. Both parties have been plagued by corruption charges, sex scandals, and an unyielding addiction to pork barrel spending to enhance their image as servants of the people.
The effects of all this neglect are; a dependence on foreign oil that continues to grow, a burgeoning entitlement crisis in Social Security and Medicare, an immigration flood tearing at the cultural fabric of the nation, the demise of our educational pre-eminence, a growing challenge to our military power by China, a decline in our economic superiority, and an increasing threat from Islamic terrorists. If this isn't enough, we also find ourselves at war in the volatile Middle East where victory appears elusive. You would think that with these challenges facing our country, the politicians would forget about who's in charge and set about getting something done. Unfortunately, such a task requires great leadership skills that are not evident anywhere in our government.
The desire for leadership can be found in just about every poll taken by the leading polling organizations and is amply demonstrated when voters are asked about who they prefer for President.
On the Democrat side, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been seen as leading the field, but that lead is static at about 35% despite the highest name recognition of any other candidate and an inherited political machine second to none. Still, she has not managed to break away from the pack, in part due to the perception to many voters that she is too polarizing. Many people say they do not really like her that much, some voters are just a little tired of "the Clintons".
Her main challenger has been freshman Sen. Barack Obama. Obama is seen as a fresh new face and proclaims his stance as the Washington "not quite insider". Political pundits have taken to likening his meteoric rise as "rock star status" but question his staying power when it comes time to advance his policies. As a result, he has steadily risen in the polls but then settled in just behind Mrs.Clinton at about 25%.
Bringing up the rear are former Senator John Edwards, who has recently risen slightly in the polls in part because of the sympathy vote due to his wife Elizabeth's cancer battle, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a longtime figure in his party with service in various positions at the national level. Edwards has been cited at about 14% while Richardson has been under 10%.
The Republican camp is in similar disarray, and it was thought early on that Arizona Sen. John McCain would be in the lead. He is well known as a Viet Nam War POW, and ran a close race for the Republican nomination in 1999-2000 against George W. Bush by positioning himself as a maverick. His fortunes have slipped however due to his actions on the national stage that have left the conservative base of the Republican party disenchanted. While he earns high marks for his military service and support for the Iraq war, his support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance legislation is seen as a direct slap in the face to the 1st Amendment, and he has in the past been unsupportive of tax cuts. As a result, he never emerged as the front runner, with ratings of about 20%. The top spot has been grabbed by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has risen to a comfortable 30% since he declared his candidacy.
America's Mayor, as he is affectionately called, gained that moniker after his steadfast leadership in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. This is his ticket to to high name recognition and he has parlayed it into a forum about his leadership ability. He touts his success during his tenure as mayor, citing the reduction in crime, the righting of the city's poor fiscal condition, and his revival of the city's overall appeal. Giuliani's supporters claim these successes demonstrate his leadership qualifications. Others however, claim that the Mayor is not reliably consistent, more like opportunistic. There are lingering questions about his support of the 2nd Amendement and his advocating public financing of abortions, and question have arisen about his unforgiving harsh attitude toward subordinates.
Number three in the GOP race is Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts. The governor claims success during his term, but opponents have fingered him for changing his mind a little to quickly on subjects like abortion and gun rights. In his attempt to thwart criticism, he has stated that he reversed course on abortion a number of years ago and that he is a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association. None of this seems to have worked among Republican voters, and he may yet rival Senator John Kerry as king of the flip-floppers. He has raised huge amounts of cash for his campaign but has not broken through in the polls, remaining in single digits.
All these numbers are quite fungible this early in the race, and the primaries will not be held until February of next year. By that time, perhaps something will change, but don't bet on it. What we should understand from this overview is this; the two parties are in a desperate race to gain and hold power at all costs. You can guarantee that as the campaign goes on, you will hear more propaganda, and the candidates will make more promises, and after it's all over we will be right back at square one. The partisanship will intensify as neither side will want to give in to or give credit to the other.
The candidates being offered to us do not display the neccessary leadership attributes our country needs. If any did, we would be flocking to their campaign in overwhelming numbers. What we need is a new kind of leadership in America. We need to start at the top with a President not of either party, an individual not beholden to party loyalties and special interests. Our next President must offer a vision of accomplishment, not a platform of ideology. This person must be one able to say that partisanship is not acceptable, a person who will take the issues head on with the congress and represent the interests of the American people first and foremost, above all other considerations. In fact, such a person would not actively be seeking a second term and would therefore not govern with electability in mind.
The only true American President for the next election cannot come from the Democrat or Republican party. If we elect our President from either party, we and our nation will pay a heavy price as partisanship will triumph over leadership, our nation's needs will go unresolved, and the future for our children and grandchildren will become less secure.
My message to you is that I will represent your interests first, I will work to get Republicans and Democrats to pass innovative and effective legislation to tackle the issues. I will challenge them openly and keep you informed. Working together, not as political parties, not as liberals and conservatives, but as Americans, we can and will preserve freedom for ourselves and our children. That is the America we were given over 200 years ago. It is the America we must strive with all of our energy to save. In other sections of this website I explain what I intend to do. The question now remains, "What do you intend to do"? |
|
