Opinion

An Independent Attitude

Don't blindly accept pols' claims

The unanticipated and unpredictable results of the Iowa presidential caucuses and the primary in New Hampshire have the national media abuzz — nay, obsessed — with the politics and the process.

Publisher George Schwarz

Which candidate's camp is spinning what to whom? Will Sen. Barack Obama's "bounce" from the Iowa win give him the win in the Granite State?

Will Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign crater?

Is her argument of experience valid enough in voters' minds to overcome Obama's Kennedyesque message of hope?

Will former Sen. John Edwards' populist views link him with Obama and appeal to voters more than Clinton's claim of experience?

Will people outside of New Mexico see Gov. Bill Richardson as the corrupt, two-bit patrón politician that he is?

Will former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee win the minds and hearts of the Republican Party?

Will former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's good looks, presidential demeanor and money overcome the voter realization of the opportunistic flip-flopper that he is?

Will voters see Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who has draped the mantle of 9-11 on himself, for the corrupt and scary man that he is?

And will voters buy the hawkish message from genuine war hero Arizona Sen. John McCain?

And why is the mainstream media neglecting Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate, who got more votes in Iowa than Giuliani?

I know, I know. Some of these questions are as slanted as a politician's push poll.

But that's how my mind is working as it combines the information I believe and the information I know about the candidates, and as I struggle with the decision I will have to make in the Texas primary and the general election in November.

All the candidates seem to be jumping on the theme of "change," saying they are agents of a transformation — although it's not clear to what anyone will change the country.

And these candidates are spinning their records, their history and their promises without really telling us what those promises are.

For example, Richardson and Clinton are trying to tell the public they can combine experience with change.

Richardson's claims of doing a good job of running New Mexico can't ring true to anyone who knows the state ranks at the bottom of the barrel on a range of issues, including but not limited to a lousy education system, an undistinguished university system, abject and seemingly irrevocable poverty and a horrible alcoholism and drunken driving problem.

Clinton's claim of experience is a further mystery since she was never an executive.

Furthermore, if she and her husband were co-presidents, then they both must answer for the failures to deal with terrorism before Sept. 11.

According to the Information Please Web site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), seven major terrorist attacks occurred on her husband's watch.

But the Clinton administration wasn't the only one that missed protecting Americans from terrorists.

Terrorists were already hard at work on Presidents Ronald Reagan's and George H.W. Bush's watch.

One thing is clear to me about the theme of change. Everyone seems to say the American people want it, but nobody at this point is really sharing his view of a sweeping change.

All we're hearing now is carping and gamesmanship with the experienced pols (yes, it is a derisive label I have for them) dodging questions better than Muhammad Ali slipped punches.

Still, the election has a long way to go, and we can only hope that as the field narrows the discussion will get more substantive.

I enjoy reading about some of the insider stuff and the games campaigns play, but at some point my colleagues covering this election from the campaign trail must shift their focus from process to issues and from personality to substance.

George Schwarz: Editor and publisher of the Amarillo Independent. He can be reached at george@amarilloindy.com

E-mail comments about this story
to the publisher of The Amarillo Independent.

Posted: January 10, 2008