David

Karki

Read Davids bio and previous columns here

December 3, 2007

Primary Preposterousness: Iowa and New Hampshire Can Kiss My Ass

Nothing illustrates better what is wrong with how American politics functions than the wall-to-wall insanity of presidential primary season. From two small states trying to tell the rest of the country who the candidates shall be, to a year and two months out being “too late” to declare one's candidacy, to the media trying in not-so-subtle fashion to rig the outcome as they would like it to be, it's hard to determine which aspect is the most ridiculous. It forces one to wonder: Is this the best we can do when it comes to selecting a president?

Iowa and New Hampshire – I have nothing against anyone in those two states, and I'm otherwise going to say this as nicely as I can: Iowa and New Hampshire can kiss my ass. I am sick to death of watching candidates endlessly pander to people whose egos have grown way too large based on the virtual kingmaker status that holding the first caucus and primary gives them.

Iowa has all but single-handedly forced the ethanol boondoggle down America's throat, so desperate are politicians to suck up to its farmers for their votes. And they don't seem to have the slightest problem with effectively selling them to the highest bidder. Sen. John McCain has been all but persona non grata there since daring to oppose ethanol back in the 2000 primaries. I didn't realize the Hawkeye Cauci were a pay-to-play event.

As for New Hampshire, they're just as bad. Fred Thompson chose to skip a “debate” (presuming that a boring recitation of 30-second sound bites and talking points can be considered one) and announce his candidacy on The Tonight Show instead. For that refusal to bend over and kiss their collective ring, New Hampshire residents have wiped Fred's existence out of their minds. To hell with whether he's the best candidate on merit – coming here to worship us for months on end is what matters!

The sooner we wrest control of the nominating process away from these two podunk states, the better off we'll all be. And from what I've seen, Iowa and New Hampshire are overdue for eating a slice of humble pie.

Then there's the schedule of this whole election, and the absolute insanity of the idea that Fred Thompson got in “too late.” He declared earlier than John Kerry did in 2004, and earlier than Bill Clinton came on the scene in 1992!  And yet, all you hear is that it's too late, too late, too late.

I would argue that it was the entire field that got in way, way too early. Two and a half years’ worth of presidential electioneering is at least two years too much. They all run the risk of voters being sick to death of the lot of them.

And why did this happen? Certainly, it was driven a little bit by the lack of an incumbent, but mostly it was the rest of the field's insatiable personal lust for power that drove them all in so soon. It should say something about their character – or lack thereof – that not one of them could be the least bit patient.

That leads me to the last aspect – the ludicrous media coverage, which vastly over-hypes even the tiniest change and issues endless proclamations,  virtually all of which are completely baseless. Would 'twere that they could step outside themselves for just a minute and see how utterly inane they all are. I've come to the point where every time I hear any media talking head say anything about the election, I ask back: Why? Because you say so? And 99 percent of the time, what that person just said is shown to be pure fertilizer.

There is one useful thing, however, about the mainstream media's biased banality: It lets us know whose victory they're trying so hard to orchestrate. Generally, this is the left-most candidate in either party – more so on the Republican side, so that if the Democrat candidate doesn't win, at least the most liberal Republican will.

And to the extent that there is any kingmaker role left aside from Iowa and New Hampshire, the media intends to play that to the full. The election may be a multiple choice test, but they're bound and determined to dictate the options from which we'll choose. Which means it isn't entirely ours to decide, after all.

Ultimately, it's up to each of the two parties to decide how they wish to determine their candidate. If they want to continue using this patently ridiculous way, that's their prerogative I suppose. But it ill-serves the country, and for a nation that is supposed to be an example to the world, to continue this display any longer is beneath us. Or should be.

© 2007 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK092. Request permission to publish here.