POLITICAL ANALYSIS:
Thinking About Baggage
Is there any wonder why Congressional approval is hovering at 14%—the worst showing in U.S. history?
by Fred Cederholm
While the chorus of candidates grows in members and volume, the public is rightly tuning them out.
I’ve been thinking about baggage. Actually I’ve been thinking about the 2008 elections, dissatisfaction, recent polls, partisanship, Michael Bloomberg, and perceptions. While the traditional kick-off for the earliest (presidential) campaigns is the Labor Day before the primaries—well over a year before the actual election—in this 2008 go-around, the circus brouhaha began ten months earlier than even that. The U.S. is now a society quagmired in both warfare and campaigning.
You see, the public is anything but happy about where we are as a nation, and where we are headed. Despite the promises made to the electorate in 2006, the hot-button issues are being side-stepped or ignored altogether. Opinion favorability polls for government performance are in the tank and continue to head south. The President’s “plus” ratings are in the high 20’s, the Veep’s “plus” ratings are in the high teens, and Congressional “plus” ratings are now in the low teens. Candidates are running from their parties and from their incumbencies. Last week, the Vice President attempted to solidify “his” position(s) by seceding his office from the executive branch. Huh...what gives?
The field of candidates is already at an all-time high, with still more prospective candidates lurking in the wings. Fred Thompson announced last week that he will announce his candidacy from Nashville this week. Al Gore, who still hasn’t overcome his “twilight zone” (du-du du-du, du-du du-du) persona from 2000, appears to be transforming his current global warming celebrity into another Oval Office run. Despite the spin, hype, and manufactured excitement, nobody seems to be catching on. Even lame attempts to undercut the other guy’s (excuse me, other person’s) position by dredging/“Drudge”ing up negative baggage from the past hasn’t caught on to any great extent either. While the chorus of candidates grows in members and volume, the public is rightly tuning them out.
Negative campaigning is a fact of life, and, despite the hollow promises to run this time on the issues, that’s not apparently going to happen—again! We’ve seen that the partisan finger-pointing—blaming the other major party for our travails, problems and situations—may make a great sound-bite, but where is the follow-up/ follow-through with a remedy or solution?
One questions whether the current appropriations bill was for the benefit of the troops, lobbyists, or special interests.
The 2006 election was first and foremost a referendum on Iraq. What has been changed by the new Congress? We’ve seen the “passage” of a continued funding resolution that was so amended by “earmarks” for pork projects/self-serving errata that one questions whether this appropriation bill was for the benefit of the troops, lobbyists, or special interests. When you throw in the lame attempt to “fix” Uncle $ugar’s illegal immigrant problem—not by enforcing existing laws or securing our borders first, but rather by granting blanket amnesty and goosing-up an already inept bureaucracy (none of which the voting public wants), is there any wonder why Congressional approval is hovering at 14%—the worst showing in U.S. history?
Last week, self-made billionaire businessman (and present Mayor of New York City) Michael Bloomberg formally became an Independent, thereby severing his ties to the Republican Party. He has had it with both major parties—being an EX-Democrat and now an EX-Republican, too. He financed his first campaign (and re-election) with his own money. Bloomberg has been highly successful in both business and government. He turned New York’s huge deficit into a surplus. He surrounds himself with highly competent people who challenge him. He believes government must listen and satisfy because “voters are customers.” He is characterized by “common sense, professionalism, and accountability.” He has brought Democrats, Republicans, and splinter groups together for the good and betterment of the city. The only thing “shady” in his past appears to be his ongoing plan to plant a million trees in a ten-year period. Does all this posture him to run for the White House as an independent candidate in 2008? He currently says no, but time will tell. The plot thickens... Bloomberg appears to have no baggage, but boy, does he have the “luggage” working for him!
Is it surprising that “DEM” appears to stand for “Deny Election Mandates” and “GOP” now appears to mean “Grab Overseas Petroleum"?
Both major parties have major image, perception, and baggage problems—rightly so, given their track records of reneging on promises and sidestepping the hot-button problems. Is it surprising that “DEM” appears to stand for “Deny Election Mandates” and “GOP” now appears to mean “Grab Overseas Petroleum"?
I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.
Copyright 2007 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved. Fred Cederholm is a CPA/CFE, a forensic accountant, and writer. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.A., M.A. and M.A.S.). He can be reached at asklet@rochelle.net.
To “audit” this column and to learn more about the subjects discussed, please check out:
Copyright © 2007 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
This story was published on June 26, 2007.
