Red Meat

Here is a nice compare and contrast for you from today’s news (in no particular order of significance):

1. Rove: Bush’s critics are ’snobs’ who hate his ‘common sense.’

2. Clinton happy to give Rove ‘heartburn’

Remember when you were a kid and your parents and teachers told you to “play nice”. But as soon as you got on the playground some bully was trying to push you down, or steal your coat or lunch money.

Or maybe you were that bully, I don’t know.

The really sad fact is that candidates of both parties are so partisan - yes, it is accentuated by it being the primaries - because that is what we the voters want. It’s what we reward.

We want meat.

Red meat.

The candidates become gladiators for our drives and desires. We love to, on the one side, see the Republicans taken down a notch. And boy that Hillary is tough. I think some Republican Administrations have been arrogant, and I don’t mind, in some respects, them being taken down a notch as well. But in some areas areas I am conservative and I also don’t believe that these types of attacks - though they feel good - really service our country.

And boy that Rove, he sure is good (”boy genius” is one of his nicknames). I’m being sarcastic. Rove has been immensely effective (although not recently) it appears, by supplementing brainpower with ruthlessness. That’s not what our country needs.

Hillary has tendencies toward the hypocrite. She is extremely quick to cast aspersions despite her husband’s administration - and her actions - being, more than a few people feel - severely scandal plagued (of course there were good aspects also, no one in fairness could say there weren’t, but, you have to say also, not every President is the subject of an impeachment either).

“Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

And then Barack Obama scores political points by saying that George Bush isn’t responsible for all of the mess, and that those who do politics as usual are also to blame. How convenient. He can skewer both Bush and Clinton at the same time, and ride the popularity - good size camps each - of voters that dislike President Bush and also those who dislike Senator Clinton.

That in itself could be enough to put him over the top.

And then there is the spin. In the article above Rove indicates that Bush is Middle America and that those who don’t like him are snobs. Talk about turning things inside out. Bush is an Ivy League educated individual whose father was President of the United States (or, as some like to say our current President “was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple”). Hillary, offers a tortured explanation of her own Iraq voting while making an attack on Iraq policy of the Administration her hallmark. Second in her arsenal is an attack on others ethics.

As they say, give me a ——– break.

How did political strength come to be defined so closely with combat? A more real definition of strength, to my mind, is simply one who hangs in there to - working with others - solve the problems that need to be solved. But it is not enough for one to win in this country. We want the other guy or gal not to be standing when we are done.

Where are the political vegetarians? We have too many meat-eaters in this country.

How do you want your politician cooked. Rare? Medium? or Well done?

Alex Hammer is the owner of Politics 2.0 (What’s now and what’s next!)