In Saturday’s (3/15) Richmond Palladium-Item, there is an opinion column by DeWane Wickham arguing that this year’s presidential race is already over. Wickham argues that the Democratic party is so split by infighting that whoever gets the Democratic nomination (Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama) will lose the general election in the fall. His argument is foolish in the extreme. Here’s why.
First, the Democratic party is known for it infighting. They do fight among themselves, but once the fighting is over, Democrats tend to pull together to try to win a general election. This particular season, the nomination campaign has been hard fought, but when a nominee is finally selected, Democrats will get together behind their candidate. The process looks like a mess, but it is what Democrats do. Observing Democrats reminds one of the oft quoted observation by humorist, Will Rogers. “I don’t belong to any organized party. I’m a Democrat.”
The reason for this is the Democratic commitment to diversity. Diversity produces diverse views. These have to be worked through. Republicans do not have this problem. Republicans only pretend a commitment to diversity. In general (with some notable exceptions) Republicans follow Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not criticize fellow Republicans.” It a walk in step and play nice party.
The second reason Democrats will pull together is George Bush and John McCain. Democrats detest the foreign and economic policies of George W. Bush, with a white-hot passion. John McCain wants give us more and more of what George Bush brought to us. When they think about that in the fall, Democrats and – I believe – independents will mobilize behind their nominee.
Right now our foreign policy is in a mess it may take 20 years to repair. Our economy is collapsing right around us. If Mr. Wickham thinks the country wants to continue along these same lines, he is – I belive – very sadly mistaken. Actually, I don’t think Wickham really believes what he wrote. He is an experienced political observer. What he wrote makes him look like he just dropped in from Mars. I think his opinion was simply an attempt to be provocative and to stir people up. If that was his purpose, he succeeded with me.
If my opinion is true, and it almost has to be, is it ethical journalism to write an opinion in which you do not believe in order to provoke people into a reaction? I think it is not.


Hmmmm,,, food for thought.
Hmmmm,,, food for thought. "Very good points"
Thanks, Captain Jack.
Thanks, Captain Jack.
God forbid Hillary's the
God forbid Hillary's the nominee, because I really think I'll be voting for Nader if that happens.
http://anythinggoesforum.us/