How About a Global War on Political Pandering?

The real problem here is the overly long and almost non-functional Presidential Primary and Nomination season. This campaign will cost a fortune and it forces each candidate to reinvent themselves constantly in an attempt to gain even one small poll percentage point along with a fleeting moment of television time.

Today's spotlight shines on John Edward's decision to attack the very existence of the Global War on Terror itself.

Edwards is mired in third place (or lower) in the national polls and he is searching for his voice. He feels he must "break through" and distinguish himself from the pack. He believes that the candidate moving the furthest from George Bush and the war in Iraq has the best opportunity among Democrat primary voters.

But it's still over six months until the first primary. It is doubtful that he is right. It is likely he is making a political mistake.

In effect he is saying that there is no real threat to the United States from the Islamic extremists. The issues raised by President Bush and others are nothing more than scare tactics.

I have no idea if he believes this or not. The "War on Terror" was a centerpiece of his campaign only a few weeks ago. Now the words have been stricken from his speeches, website and campaign, except as a "put down" to the President.

But, as John "I voted for the funding of the troops before I voted against it" Kerry learned the hard way, such political pandering in the primaries can come back to haunt you in the general election.

In the same vein, I wonder about Hillary Clinton's vote against funding the troops yesterday. Although nearly every single Democrat Senator voted for the bill, Clinton, Obama and Dodd were the notable Presidential Candidates voting against funding the troops.

I don't believe, except for the very consistent anti-war candidate Barack Obama, that these are genuine votes of conscience. I believe, especially for Clinton who had been a rather consistent supporter of the troops, that this is just more political pandering.

Move to the left. Step to the left. Dance to the left. To the Left. To the Left.

Pray everyone forgets by November, 2008.

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

Addendum 2/25/2007 11:48 pm

Chris Kelly, writing in today's Huffington Post, is also taking on political pandering, but he's focusing on the dancers who are waltzing to the right. His target (and it's a really easy target) is Mitt Romney. Kelly's writing is so clever and his points are so very correct that I have to quote him here. But link on over and read his entire article: Mitt Romney Owns It.

Mitt Romney is the first candidate to take pandering so far beyond cynicism that it's not even cynicism anymore. It's Romantic Irony. If you think it's inconsistent for him to change sides all the time, you're missing the point. When he had to be pro-choice to get elected, he was pro-choice. When he had to be pro-life, he was pro-life. When he had to support civil rights for gays and lesbians, he did. Now that he doesn't, he doesn't. Guns? Campaign finance reform? Immigration? Tax cuts? Abortion? He's been as dependable as an atomic clock: He's changed his mind on everything.

Don't think for a minute all this won't come back to haunt Romney in the general election if he becomes the nominee, as Kelly predicts.

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

ANOTHER ADDEMDUM!! 5/28/2007 12 NOON

Mary over at FREEDOM EDEN is taking on the Democrats who chose to completely ignor any possible facts in their zeal to move to the left in pandering for votes. You may well disagree with Mary's opinions on Iraq, but they are well worth reading. U.S. Troops to the Rescue in Iraq.

TECHNORATI TAGS: CHRIS KELLY MITT ROMNEY GEORGE BUSH JOHN EDWARDS HILLARY CLINTON BARACK OBAMA WAR ON TERROR POLITICS DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us