Why am I, a young man who believes that politics is little more than a somewhat poorly organized Viking raid on the monasteries of commerce and hearth, following next year’s presidential race? Because, to somewhat twist the words of Helena Bonham Carter in “Fight Club,” it’s cheaper than a movie and there’s free coffee.
Politics to me is perhaps the most entertaining spectacle outside watching drunk freshman and LSU football. Where else will you watch a crowd of mostly older wealthy white men gag at the cruddy pies of Iowa hicks, act like James Brown with a gospel choir and pander to every group from the vegans to the Mormons. What’s even funnier, or sadder depending on where you stand on the matter, is who’s running. With this week’s addition of retired General Wesley Clark, the Democratic nominees have swelled to 10. These 10 little Indians face off against George W. Bush (President of the United States and Texas, Emperor of Iraq, Afghanistan, Earl of ye olde England, and Defender of the Faith etc.), a man whose utter ineptness has made Bill Clinton look like, if not a pillar of virtue, at least a competent manager. Still, the Democrats may have some trouble unseating the reigning champ.
Surely this isn’t because of Bush’s competence, but the absolutely awful nature of the Democratic field. For Democratic voters they have a choice between 10 aspirants to the throne of Lincoln and Washington, none of them even above mediocre. As a service to the general public I will list them below, with sundry comments.
The third-tier candidates are Denis Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, the Rev. Al Sharpton, a political agitator from New York, Bob Graham, a senator from Florida, and Carol Mosley-Braun. None of these candidates have a chance, but Sharpton and Kucinich are without a doubt the two most interesting candidates running. Kucinich strikes me as a hippie who got lost coming back from Woodstock, and still has the occasional acid flashback. That being said, he has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war (my enthusiasm is tempered because one almost believes that most of his domestic policy ideas were brought about by years of smoking peyote). Sharpton, who lacks the appeal of Jesse Jackson from 1988, is perhaps the best spoken candidate in the race, but is also, in his politics, the biggest horses’ ass.
The second tier is almost as bad, though unlike the bottom level each of these men have a decent size base that will keep them in the primaries until Super Tuesday. They are Joseph Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut and full time shill to concerned women of America, Dick Gephardt, a Missouri congressman who looks like a cross between a Viking who spent too much time in the sun and a Ken doll (which, I suppose is the same thing), and John Edwards, the senior senator from North Carolina. Edwards, of all the candidates besides Gen. Clark, is most likely to have the best shot in the general election, but he’s hurt by the fact that the majority of voters have tired of his “down home boy” act, despite the fact that he is a millionaire trial lawyer.
Lastly, we reach the top tier, where we find former Vermont governor Howard Dean, the current front runner, fighting it out with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and new arrival Wesley Clark. Look for two of these fellows to take it all the way to the convention for a floor fight. Unfortunately for the Democrats, only Clark, at the moment, really has the stature to put Bush into serious trouble. Dean, despite all the verbiage out about him, is relatively unknown outside of democratic enthusiasts, news junkies, and drugged out college students.
It would seem that the Democrats must then pin their hopes on a General, the same fellow who wanted to kick the Russians out of the Pristina Airport during the Kosovo war, and was prevented only from doing so by the British General Sir Michael Jackson who told Gen. Clark that he refused to “Start World War III.”
So, there we are, the aspirants for the throne held by the Duke of Crawford, Texas. Of course, not one of these candidates will cut the size of government, return to neutrality, repeal drug laws or limit immigration. They will, with a few exceptions, let everything stand that Bush has done, bad and good, and simply add more idiocy to the overflowing privy that is the federal government. All we’ll be doing by voting for one of these folks is sending another thief to the palace, or returning the old one. As for me, well, I intend to grab a six-pack, take a seat, and enjoy an act that would make P.T. Barnum writhe with envy.