Politics of Pandering

With the primary season in full swing, states holding early contests are seeing their fair share of pandering from the candidates this year. Mitt Romney, the native-born son of Michigan pulled out a huge win in the GOP primary this week after blasting the state with millions of dollars of targeted ads and far-reaching promises, which included pledges to rebuild the auto-industry... [from the Whitehouse].

President Romney plans to hold round-table meetings (within his first 100 days, mind you) with all relevant parties to intervene on behalf of GM and Ford, bringing together labor and management. I guess since the Dems weren’t contesting the state, someone had to use the John Edwards playbook. It’s nice to know that a top priority of the Republican candidate would be to intervene on behalf of the “free-market” to stop 40-year economic trends within his first 100 days. Good thing there is nothing else pressing in 2009.

As over-the-top as the Romney speeches may have been (and they worked, mind you) John Edwards wasn’t to be out-foxed when it comes to populist pandering. In a debate Tuesday night in Nevada (home of Yucca Mountain), Edwards said, “absolutely no [to nuclear power]”. Forget that nuclear power is an absolutely necessary component for energy independence. What matters is that anti-nuclear sentiment goes a long way in a state where the only nuclear waste facility in the US is located.

Of course Michigan and Nevada don’t hold a candle to the pandering that happens every 4 years in Iowa. Iowanians are fortunate enough to have administration after administration fawn over their ethanol production as the fuel source to save our county. Food supply be damned, we will make ethanol the gasoline of tomorrow (even it does cost twice as much). Because Iowa is the first caucus and candidates need momentum right away.

Seriously, in the internet age, I hope we can “start” holding politicians accountable, or at least stop giving them our votes based on blatant attempts to buy us off. At some point, we need to look at records of candidates and base our judgment on the merit of their own statements. I know this may sound preachy, but do we really need a luxury car salesman as President, or can we (at least once a generation), ask for a leader with conviction and (dare I say it) honesty?