January 5, 2008
Corn Dogs And
Peanuts
Vol. 3
Issue 1
This week the Iowa caucuses officially
kicked off the 2008 presidential election
cycle with
resounding results. If you look at the
results, it appears that Republicans voted
for the basic
principles of lower taxes, limited
government, and personal responsibility.
Huckabee may
have received a large amount of the
evangelical vote. The Democrats on the other
hand,
rejected Hillary Clinton’s promise of higher
taxes, socialized health care, a weak
national
defense and a million ideas that Americans
will have trouble paying for.
Most Americans are familiar with how
elections work—secret ballots, an
18-year-old age
requirement, all-day voting, with no
electioneering but, not in Iowa. In a
previous Op-Ed
article I wrote titled "Is Politics
Interfering With Your Sex Life." (You can
read it on the
archives page) I describe the vitriolic
feelings that have developed among friends
over
political discord that have caused
tremendous rifts in relationships--even
amongst married
couples and significant others. In Iowa
without a secret ballot, this rift seems to
widen now
that you have to break into groups to be
counted. Your neighbors now really know how
you
feel.
Why have the Iowa caucuses become so
important? The Iowa caucuses claim to be a
grass-
roots exercise in direct democracy. Yet only
about ten-percent of the eligible voters
participate. They feature face-to-face
meetings between the candidates or their
representatives and the caucus members. The
members are wooed and cajoled to change
their minds and vote their way. On the
Democratic side if a candidate does not
receive
fifteen-percent of total vote in a caucus
the voters must cast their vote for another
candidate who receives more than the
required fifteen-percent—sounds a little
disingenuous
to me. I find it strange that a group of
people gathering to meet in people’s homes,
firehouses, public libraries and such are
going to be the first people to help decide
who will be
the candidate for each party. The
Republicans and Democrats alike have their
own set of
rules how the caucuses will be conducted.
Watching the mainstream media coverage of
the caucuses was predictable. Fox News
reported on all the candidates. However, if
you listened carefully to CBS, NBC and ABC
you
did not hear much about Hillary Clinton
losing. An obvious testimonial to the MSM
real feelings
about the self-coronated queen from New
York. They kept reporting on how Mike
Huckabee
was winning on the Republican side and what
impact it might have to the Giuliani,
Romney,
and McCain campaigns. Some of the words I
heard were how the Republicans are now
divided and really do not have a clear
front-runner. I thought they were predicting
a
Huckabee win for days before the caucuses.
Where is the surprise? I did not hear those
same sentiments voiced towards the
Democrats.
The shake out from the results on the
Democratic side are Joe Biden and
Christopher Dodd
dropping out of the race, which narrows the
Democratic field by two--so, who’s
regrouping.
If you analyze why Barrack Obama (D-IL)
won, you will find that he bussed in
thousands of
college students to take part in the
caucuses. In addition, he had the youth
vote, which
broadcast a message to the baby boomers that
their rein is over. You had your turn with
LBJ
and Jimmy Carter now it is our turn. We want
change the way you wanted change back
then. Nevertheless, are they studying what
changed back then?
President Johnson escalated the Vietnam
War where over 50,000 Americans died in
combat.
Some died during demonstrations against the
war at home. When he put his Great Society
Program in place, he had to rape the Social
Security trust fund to pay for it. It took a
Republican administration (Nixon) to get us
out of the war. However, only after public
sentiment against the war with the help of a
congress that demanded we get out. Sound
familiar?
Under Carter, we were held hostage for
444 days and had the highest prime rate and
inflation rate in history. Now the former
president travels around the world bashing
America.
I wonder if Roslyn is embarrassed, (my
thought). All Obama keeps saying is that he
wants to
pull the troops out of Iraq immediately and
there are "changes coming." There will be
changes coming all right, when the war on
terror is brought back home because of his
lack
of experience in foreign policy and refusal
to believe as the Left does, that there is a
war on
terror—something the Republicans are better
dealing with than the Left. In addition,
then
there is the small cloud that hangs over him
about his early days in a Madrassa--which he
hasn't really addressed, except to tell us
he is a practicing Christian and let’s not
go there
(my emphasis).
So now, it is on to New Hampshire, which
may have a different result for the
Republicans.
However, the real questions are will Obama's
win in Iowa sweep him on to a win in New
England? What affect will that have on
Hillary?
On the Republican side, the question is,
will Mitt Romney lose in New Hampshire right
next
door to his home state? What affect will
that have on the rest of the Republican
field?
Hopefully, the voters will wise up and
reject those risky and backward-looking
principles on
both sides of the aisle and do the right
thing.
Four years ago, very few of us heard of
Mike Huckabee. Two years ago, no one heard
of
Barbaro until the Kentucky Derby. And, we
all know what happened to Barbaro.
Four years ago, no one knew the name
Barrack Obama. In 1978, few of us heard of a
peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia either.
That's what corn dogs and peanuts have in
common.
And, that is my opinion.
Michael Solomon
If you want to
help restore sanity to America, join the
Flag Day campaign.
|
