The Town Hall Archives

Jared

A few people on the boards have expressed interest in a course on politics, a sort of Politics 101. Of course, with my utter obsession for all things political, I'm only too happy to comply.

If you're curious about politics but don't really want to be wading through article 14, subsection 26.38 of musty old legal documents, don't worry. I'll try to make this interesting! Despite what you may have heard, politics is anything but boring. You may not believe me, but all that I ask is that you give me a chance to make that case.

There are many things I could focus on in this "course," but I have decided to focus heavily on election politics. That is not to say that it is necessarily the most important aspect of things political - actual legislating is obviously the ultimate goal of the political system. However, watching the races is by far the most entertaining and I hope to through this show how things really work in the political arena. Sometimes I'll talk about legislation, sometimes about policy. Sometimes, individual politicians. And more often than not, I'll talk about election politics.

At this point in time, the biggest stories concerning upcoming elections deal with the 2004 presidential race. Yes, there are earlier races. Three governors will be chosen later this year and I'll be talking about that some. Several interesting developments have occurred recently with regard to the Senate, and I'll definitely be bringing that up. But let's face it: presidential politics are simply the most interesting. And, quite frankly, the most entertaining.

To start things off this course, I'd like to introduce to you the Democratic candidates for the presidency. Why them? Well, there's nothing funnier than a bunch of crazy Democrats all trying to prove to the primary voters that they are more liberal than the rest! As they sling mud at each other, move farther and farther to the left, waste enormous sums to advance themselves in the primaries and travel across the country to make their case for all things liberal to the total enjoyment of Republicans everywhere, there's only one concern for the Bush White House: what to call this strange cast of characters that make up the Democratic contenders.

There's nine of them, so they can't reach back to the '88 and '92 playbook and call them the Seven Dwarves. The number never reached twelve, so the phrase "dirty dozen" is out. Of course, there's one undecided that may announce at some point, so I have a suggestion for the Republican leadership: "the ten plagues."

But without further ado, allow me to introduce to you the nine highly respected individuals who-- sorry, forgot who I was talking about. Anyway, I give you the Democratic contenders! After all, I certainly don't want them!

[Note: I want interaction throughout this "course" and there probably won't be at first, during the introductions to the candidates. But this is necessary so you know who I'm talking about later. If you have something to bring up or just feel like commenting, by all means do so. I'd also appreciate opinions on what's here thus far. But I will admit that until we get out of the who's who of these candidates, there won't be a lot to talk back and forth about.]

First, there's Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who insists on using the middle initial constantly, really believing that the initials "JFK" will have an effect on the electorate. And considering the crazy things some people fall for, I wouldn't be too surprised if it did. Senator Kerry's major weaknesses are that he is a senator (sitting senators rarely make the jump to the presidency; the position usually goes to those with executive experience... people like governors), that he is from Massachusetts (Massachusetts liberals are notoriously hard for the American people to elect; does the name Michael Dukakis mean anything to you? [hint: failure]), that he is ultra-rich (Republicans get accused of being too rich, but Democratic politicians are far richer than Republicans and Kerry is the richest of them all) and that his wife is Teresa Heinz Kerry, among other things.

Yes, Heinz. As in, widow of the late Pennsylvania Republican (yeah, Republican) Senator John Heinz, who held the Heinz ketchup and pickles fortune. As in, the sole beneficiary of her deceased husband's $600 million plus fortune. In a way, it's a very good fit. After all, Senator Kerry is known for his ability to come in 57 varieties - and more! His opinion changes constantly. First, he was for the war. Then against it. Then cautiously for it. Then really, really against it. Then for the troops but against the war. And then-- well, you get the picture.

The one thing he has held firm on? His complete and total support for abortion in all forms. Kerry recently told members of NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League) that he would make sure that all men he nominated for judicial positions were pro-choice. You may remember that Republicans are always accused of having a pro-life "litmus test" for judges; Kerry definitely has one, wouldn't you say? Well, he says not. He explained to a reporter who asked that it's not a litmus test, as abortion is a constitutional right as inherent as freedom of speech and so on. I am really beginning to think that there are two copies of the constitution out there, because he can't be reading from the version I've read. Maybe it has something to do with Al Gore's "living, breathing" constitution or something. But I digress.

All would be well with Mr. Kerry if he had complete control of his wife's fortune, but Mrs. Heinz Kerry is quite a strange woman. She has apparently decided she doesn't want to waste her $600 million fortune on her husband's presidential run. Kerry, after indicating initially that he'd be using a lot of this money, has backtracked and "explained" that he decided to work for his campaign cash. In other words, it's easier to get liberals to fill the coffers than it is for him to get his wife to financially back him.

To make matters worse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who has only been married to the Senator for about four years, recently said in an interview that she wasn't worried about the race because she had no skeletons in her closets. When pressed, she said that she didn't know whether or not her husband had any deep, dark secrets, as she had only known him for a short while. She said, however, that she doesn't think he would have decided to run if he had anything big to hide. What confidence in her husband!

She has publicly complained that her husband's advisers want her to look "adoringly" at him while he speaks and she can't stand doing that. She once demonstrated on national television what her husband looks like while having a Vietnam flashback, causing his campaign to immediately say that Senator Kerry is in excellent mental condition and does not have flashbacks and Mrs. Kerry was surely only referring to a nightmare he had at some point. Speaking of the "Mrs. Kerry" thing... she's always gone by "Heinz," once swore at a reporter who asked if she'd consider changing her last name to reflect her new husband's surname and when her husband hit the campaign trail, made it clear that she'd never go by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Well, guess what? After some convincing, she's going by "Teresa Heinz Kerry." But only unofficially. She says she will not make Kerry her legal last name.

But Mrs. Kerry isn't the only one giving campaign advisers headaches. Senator Kerry has made headlines with some of his own comments on the trail. He has said that we need "regime change" in the United States more than we need regime change in Iraq. He lied to reporters who dogged him about a medical issue, then apologized, saying he needed time to notify family members first. But that turned out to be a lie as well. The issue was a minor surgery and they had known for months. (As for privacy, you really give that up when you run for president. If you have an ingrown toenail taken care of, you should expect to field questions about it at your next press conference! And while I may be exaggerating here, well, not by that much...)

And it has come out recently that for over a decade, he has obscured the fact that, despite the last name, he's not Irish. Most would say something along the lines of "Who cares?" But the answer is that residents of Massachusetts do. It's an enormously Irish state and most of their politicians are Irish. With a name like Kerry, many people assumed Kerry was Irish as well. And he participated in all kinds of Irish events. No crime thus far. But even though his office called in to correct various news articles with erroneous information about him over the years, they never corrected reports writing about his Irish roots. And even worse, the Congressional Record (complete records of everything said in the houses of Congress) have a Kerry speech in which he talks about how proud he is to be Irish. His campaigns have featured Irish imagery, slogans... His stump speeches have mentioned how proud he is of being Irish. The problem is that he's not Irish and he knows it and has known it.

That's not all the controversy surrounding his roots, though. Fifteen years ago, he learned that he had a Jewish ancestor. It was no big deal at the time. But now, after all these years, he's facing one key opponent, Joe Lieberman, who just happens to be Jewish. And suddenly Kerry "discovered" his Jewish roots. He had known for a decade and a half, but he told reporters at a press briefing that he had just discovered it and that the knowledge rejuvenated him or some such nonsense. Since then, he has been periodically attending synagogues (while still attending Catholic masses Sunday morning). In other words, a transparent election ploy.

The man will say and do just about anything to be elected. And thus far, it's working. Or at least among Democrats. Despite some rather poor popularity ratings and low numbers in all the polls, he slightly leads the other Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination in polls of Democratic voters likely to participate in the primaries.

By the way: Just to make sure that nothing is left unexplained, let me define primary elections. These are the elections in which a party chooses which candidate from that party will actually run for a particular office. In other words, it is where they compete for the right to compete under the banner of the Democratic Party. As a sitting Republican President, Bush will face no serious primary opposition and will win the Republican nomination quickly and quietly. For the Democrats, though, the nine candidates will be facing each other down for the right to (if I may add a little partisan wishful thinking) lose to President Bush in 2004.

--------------------------

I'd appreciate comments, questions and the like. On Monday, I will post introductory pieces to three more contenders, Senators Joe Lieberman and John Edwards and Representative Dick Gephardt.

hawkeye · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 12:18 am Post subject:

Good peice! But you forgot to add his comments in California that if elected president, he WILL overturn any and all abortion restriction Bush has put into place.

Jared · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 7:25 am Post subject:

That's true. The partial birth abortion ban, which should emerge from the House and get the President's signature soon, will be tough to overturn, as that would need Congressional approval, something that should be hard to get for quite a while.

But some of Bush's executive orders - stopping government funding of abortions for federal workers, ending foreign base abortion suppliers, etc. - would definitlely be overturned by Kerry. And any other one of the Democratic candidates, for that matter.

Candidates Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich were once solidly pro-life. Kucinich voted with pro-lifers until just recently and Gephardt, although changing his support a long time ago, advertised in and wrote an op-ed for a pro-life publication during his first House run and remained pro-life for a few years in the House.

Why the change? For both of them, the chance at more power. As a pro-life Democrat, Gephardt was never going to advance in his party. Some considered him somewhat of a rising star in the party, but it didn't matter to the leadership, who decided that no pro-lifer would advance in the ranks. For Gephardt, political power trumped moral values... He now earns perfect ratings from pro-abortion organizations.

And Kucinich? As soon as he decided to run for president, he changed his position, knowing that you can't run for that large of an office on the Democratic ticket if you aren't a supporter of abortion on demand. Once again, the chance for power was more important than the need to do what is right.

Elf of Rivendell · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 10:06 am Post subject:

Thanks Jared! I was beginning to think you had forgotten about this!

Coralfish · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 10:29 am Post subject:

I just had the chance to read all of this, and it is quite interesting.

I am particualraly interersted in what you will write concerning Senator Joseph Lieberman. Confused

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 12:06 pm Post subject:

Hey, Jared, if you die, can I take over?

Bennett Charles · Town Villain Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 2410

I think Jared needs a life...

hawkeye · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 1:41 pm Post subject:

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 3:10 pm Post subject:

Well, I was a poli sci major, I just don't see the point in rambling about politics all the time when I can amuse myself otherwise.

Jared · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 4:04 pm Post subject: