If there were ever a Truth-in-Advertising Law required of political campaigns, the picture would be very different.
(SALEM, Ore.) - Primary Season 2008 in the heated race for the Presidency is almost at the halfway mark. This is an amazing maze we voters face. The lack of no incumbent president or v.p. running this time around leaves a power vacuum, with a pack of wolves hungry to fill this.
What are primaries all about? They are contest between presidential candidates, some truly viable and others less so. There are those who see themselves as self-anointed successors to hugely unpopular President Bush, while others are simply going through the motions and using the platform to "deliver a message".
Have no doubt that there are many players behind the scenes. Virtually every enterprise in America has a vested interest on who occupies the Oval Office, and how it effects their own survival and scope of influence. Be not surprised that campaign money is flowing to favor one given candidate to the exclusion of others.
If you were shopping for a Chief Executive in the supermarket, what shelf would you pick? Would you reach for the most attractive box as designed by the Madison Ave. crowd, or have you the patients to study and analyze the ingredients? More likely the first.
These days, campaign staffers are eagerly wanting to drive up the "negatives" of the rival. Nobody sits there with a polygraph to test out the truth factor, unfortunately. If there were ever a Truth-in-Advertising Law required of political campaigns, the dropouts would prevail.
Listen very carefully to the words of the rhetoric. Most is geared to set a mood that you the voter can identify with. They want you to think, "I like what he/she is saying" without there being an iron-clad promise. It's clearly an appeal to our sentiments.
It would be mischievous fun to take out the Inaugural Address of the last president of that party and compare it to the current candidate's vision. Note the discrepancies!
At this point in Presidential Primary Season '08, all but one of the top-tier contenders are US Senators or former Senators. That should establish an important litmus test for voters to judge their effectiveness as consensus builders. Let me clarify on this:
* All Presidents cannot do it alone. They must achieve the approval of Congress on all policy and budget items before they can sign any legislation;
* If a sitting US Senator has a track-record of being "persuasive" with other lawmakers that give us confidence that gridlock will be greatly reduced;
* If that sitting Senator continuously introduced bills that die in comittee or never make it to the President's desk for signing, that is an ominous sign;
* Finally, should a Senator be highly deficient in introducing new ideas for legislation how can we voters we convinced they will magically become "agents of change"?
In my more idealistic moments when much younger, I once wondered what might happen if:
>All candidates had to sign a contract to produce whatever they promised in speeches should they actually be elected;
>If my midterm they failed to carry out 50% of those promised, they would leave office in favor up the runner-up candidate;
>In essence, this makes a reality of the metaphor: produce, or get off that pot!
If this were to materialize, to be sure, the shape of integrity in politics would forever change. Yes, integrity in politics. Or is that simply an oxymoron?
Note: Lee Coyne has written on national politics since his "Under The Dome" column first appeared in The Queens Voice in 1963. He deems himself a political independent and now lives in Salem, OR. He welcomes email at luckycoyne@yahoo.com.
Prime Time for Primaries: An Amazing Maze!Salem-News.com