Democrats & Liberals: Archives

January 12, 2004

Just Tell Me Why

So the Iowa caucuses are a week away. And last night’s debate was just another opportunity for the field to bash each other before January 19. Living in New York, I’ve watched Al Sharpton’s involvement with interest — and more often than not, I felt he was talking about issues. But going after Dean the way he did last night smacked of grandstanding — and I remembered for the first time in a long time that that’s how Sharpton came to national attention in the first place.

So I contrast the Democratic squabbling (r.r.) last night with the news reports this morning that focused on Paul O’Neill’s recollections of his time in the Bush II White House and the fact that personal privacy intrusions and “color-coding” continues in the name of national security.

I was born in DC and grew up in NoVa. I worked for the Navy Department during summers while in college. And I had a poster above my cubicle -- it was a picture of lemmings jumping off the ice floe into the water. The caption: "Don't ask why. Just do it." I think I've been fighting against that mentality my whole life -- now come to find that's happening every day in the White Houes. And I fear has become a prevalent life motto for many across the country.

And as for Sharpton, right now I'm more concerned about "red, yellow and green" issues than I am about black and white ones. Not that race isn't an important issue -- but it's nothing new in this country. Too many changes are taking place to keep reading out of the same Democratic playbook. When is someone going to start focusing on telling the American public why they -- instead of Bush -- should be President of the United States? Kudos to Moseley-Braun for trying to do that last night.

I also worked on the Mondale-Ferraro campaign in 1984. I was a senior in college and most of my last semester was spent interning at the campaign headquarters on Wisconsin Avenue. After graduating, I was hired full time as a member of the scheduling staff -- and was put to work finding motorcade vehicles and press buses in every city, village or hamlet that Mondale or Ferraro visited.

Before that, while still in college, I spent several weeks in New Hampshire - Berlin to be exact - going door-to-door encouraging people to vote for Walter Mondale in the primary. And then spent a short time in Maine for the caucus there. So the Iowa caucuses weren't really that important to me the month preceding the New Hampshire primary. And that remains true to this day. Why do we care so much about Iowa and what it means? And I'm not talking about the perception of what it means -- but what it truly means.

In light of the upcoming caucuses, I'm struck by NBC's timely report concerning Dean's comments four years ago about the Iowa caucus. The real problem isn't his correcting himself now -- there's no other way for someone in his position to respond. My problem with Dean is that given the context of the discussion, his comments then had merit -- as they do now. I admit I haven't been to Iowa -- but I've talked with plenty who have. And I have attended Democratic caucuses in Maine and Virginia -- and whether anyone will be willing to admit it or not, special interests do play a big role in the final outcome. I'm not taking away an individual's role in the caucus process -- but you've got to be big, loud and basically obnoxious to have any real impact. I had hoped Dean's campaign was changing the face of politics -- but now I'm starting to think it's more of the same -- just with a fresh angle.

But I guess that's human nature. Just as it's human nature to change one's mind -- as polled Iowans have indicated, according to yesterday's Meet the Press, so why keep polling? Which brings me to another point - Iowans hold a unique position in this country -- and they know it. They think they know how to manipulate the system -- and the media. And New Hampshire residents are even more hard core -- I've heard several say that if they haven't shaken hands with a candidate at least five times, there's no way they'll get that person's vote. Direct contact with a presidential candidate FIVE times? Millions of Americans would love the opportunity to do so one -- in their lifetime.

The over-importance of two of the nation' smallest states - one in size and one in population - on the primary schedule is an outrage. So why not take the results of tomorrow's DC primary more seriously than we do Iowa's? (It's too late this year since most took themselves off the ballot, the results are non-binding and the outcome is tied up more in DC voting rights than who should be President but I still want to know why. And don't worry, I already know the answer. I just keep hoping that real change is possible.)

Posted by 9thwave at January 12, 2004 12:13 PM
Comments
Comment #5212

9thWave, how are the states chosen and scheduled for their primaries/caucuses? Is this an F.Eelections Commission function?

Some have criticized that there are too many candidates running from the Democratic Party. I personally have enjoyed hearing from Sharpton and Braun, and agree, that have added a lot in terms of issues to the debate. Were it not for Braun, women’s issues would be getting little play. Were it not for Sharpton, a focus on the continuing institutional rascism issue would have no play. Also, Sharpton is a virtually infinite resource for one line zingers that recap his messges very effectively.

Kucinich’s message appears to be gaining steam as he is moving up in the polls and taking some votes from Dean. It is hard to oppose an endless occupation in Iraq and not talk straight on the issue of introducing U.N. forces to replace many of ours. He brings this message home so clearly. I enjoyed this debate much more than the last one I saw with the moderator steering the questions quite ineffectively.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2004 03:06 PM
Comment #5214

FEC may be involved but not in any way I can tell. The primary process is a hodge-podge of decisions and decision makers that varies from state to state with no central control, absent oversight by the national party organizations. And it has the potential to change every four years. Reform has been discussed for years but nothing much has changed, despite a lot of talk in the 90s.

DC City Council moved its primary date this cycle — as many states clamored to do — from May to Jan. 13 — but due to DNC declarations, the DC board decided to make it a non-binding primary — no delegates are up for grabs (that happens in mid-Feb.) — and five of the nine aren’t even on the ballot in deference to DNC.

So Iowa and NH retain “first in nation” status, even if DC voters go to the polls and vote tomorrow. I honestly don’t understand why the other 48 states don’t finally figure out a way to do something about this.

I know there was a plan proposed back in 1999 by the National Association of Secretaries of State but it required the backing of both the DNC and RNC and didn’t materialize. And I found this book proposal on the Internet but no evidence that it had been published. Contains some interesting reading.

Posted by: 9thwave at January 12, 2004 04:45 PM
Comment #5219

Scheduling of elections, including presidential primaries, is left up to to the states to determine. In recent years, a number of states have begun to move up the dates of their primaries in order to gain more influence, and some states with later primaries have simply scraped them.

To me, it’s rediculous to allow a couple of tiny states whose populations do not even closely mirror the rest of the nation have such influence on the presidential elections. Both Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white, neither have a large metropolitan area, both rely heavily on agriculture, etc. Additionally, having candiates from neighboring states skews the results (Gephart from Missouri, which neighbors Iowa; Dean from Vermon and Kerry from Mass. which both border New Hampshire).

They need to have the primaries on 1 or 2 dates so that all states have an equal say in determining the party nominee for the general election. It’s only fair that California, Florida, New York have as much say as Iowa, New Hampsire, and South Carolina in determining which two candidates face off to be President of the United States.

Posted by: blipsman at January 12, 2004 06:47 PM
Comment #5232

9thWave and blipsman, thank you both for responding to my inquiry. I was woefully ignorant on this subject. Sounds like the problem stems from the Constitution which grants the states the authority to devise their own and conduct elections.

This could be a tough nut to crack.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2004 08:27 AM