<< Front page Commentary February 20, 2004

Copy editors have opinions, too: Presidential race

From the rise and fall of Dr. Howard Dean to the fall and rise of Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Presidential Race has already been a tumultuous one.

Amidst the drama, the contest and often enough the confusion, one question has been on everyone’s mind: what does Oberlin Review copy editor Harrison Demchick think about all of this?

As a first-time voter and an obsessive watcher of the news — okay, fine, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart — I am more informed about politics than I have ever been before and that makes me well-prepared to pick a candidate from the pool of viable Democrats.

What a shame, then, that I don’t get a vote. I lean considerably more towards the center than your average Obie; I am a registered Independent, which means that I don’t identify with either political party.

It also means that, as a Maryland voter, I cannot vote in the primaries, so I must be content to sit back, cheer for the ones I like and write as though my opinion matters.

I have been pulling for Senator John Edwards ever since he announced his candidacy on, of all places, The Daily Show. A rather odd basis on which to choose a preferred Democratic candidate, I know, but to me this act is quite significant and indicative of Edwards’s nature.

Edwards made a promise, well before he actually decided to run for president, that if he ever did he would announce it on The Daily Show — a promise apparently made in jest, like any number of the governmental appointments host Jon Stewart has been offered in various interviews.

But Edwards chose to follow through with his promise, however silly it was, which to me is indicative of an everyday morality and honesty any future president should have. I am also a fan of his positive campaign, and amongst all the candidates he seems to be particularly charismatic.

Inconsequential? Charisma may not have been terribly important for some of history’s greater presidents, but the aftermath of 9/11 showed just how significant it can be nowadays. President George W. Bush’s charisma was key in rallying Americans who had just suffered through one of the greatest tragedies in American history, and given the trying times that may be ahead a future president needs to be able to inspire people.

At this point I do not feel that front-runner Kerry is capable of this, just as I know former Vice President Al Gore would not have been. I have nothing against Kerry or his campaign, although his flip-flopping on the need for war is a bit troublesome, but nothing he has done has inspired me to support him in this race, much less vote for him come November.
That’s right — if Kerry receives the presidential nomination, I will support Bush’s re-election.

Heresy, I know, particularly on this campus, and while my intent is not sacrilege I must make it clear that I genuinely like Bush as a president.
I do not agree with the war in Iraq, nor am I comfortable with the possibility that he was incorrect about the presence of weapons of mass destruction (I find the notion that he was lying patently absurd) and his stance on gay marriage disturbs me — in fact, there are any number of policy issues on which I disagree — but he is also a man who has morals and sticks with them regardless of poll numbers or popular opinion and he strikes me, as he always has, as a genuinely good person and a competent, principled chief executive.

So these things, to me, are relevant issues. What is not relevant? I really fail to see the point of the pre-emptive mudslinging the Democrats have dredged up, the unsubstantiated accusations that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard first and foremost.

Even if it is true (which evidence and logic seem to deny), really, what difference does that make now and what does it have to do with his abilities as president? Are we afraid he’s going to take off from the White House without notice? I’d think Democrats would be in favor of that. In any case, despite its irrelevance, it is suddenly a pressing issue, the focus of reporters and pundits alike, people insisting that it is true because it cannot be proven untrue. I would like to point out that no one can prove Kerry does not eat baby orphans, either. There’s a logical accusation for you.

I am also bothered, quite bothered, by the increasing number of people voting for Kerry because he is the front-runner, rather than Kerry being the front-runner due to an increasing number of people voting for him.

Many are selecting him as their candidate because he seems presidential, or has momentum or has the best chance of defeating Bush, when in reality people should be voting for the candidate who would make the best president. Is that not what this whole thing is all about?

What is the point of primaries in the first place if voters are just going to select the most popular, rather than the best, candidate?

Ah, but what do I know? I am merely a first-time voter, and even worse, a Review copy editor. I like to think, though, that my outsider status gives me a different perspective and that I can sometimes see party politics and general illogic better than those who are more involved.

Or maybe not. In any case, all I ask is a bit of logic to rise above the propaganda and party politics. That can be a difficult thing during a presidential election, but now that I am, for the first time, aware of politics, I would like to see it happen.


 
 
   

The Review News Service: News, weather, sports and more, in your email every Sunday and Wednesday night. To subscribe, send an email to subscriptions@
oberlinreview.org