Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
Inside FeatureBy Alex HeardPublished on February 19, 1992With the New Hampshire primary behind us, and the March 10 Florida primary looming, you may find yourself stomping around in circles, bellowing (in the manner of James Earl Jones in Yellow Pages ads), "Choices! I NEED choices!" Because the choices you've gotten so far just don't cut it. The Democrats served up five men whose concept of a "race" was to Moonwalk backward from the starting gate. The Republicans offered two gents whose idea of enlightened racial politics was to point out, proudly and loudly, that unlike their shared opponent, David Duke, they have never been registered Nazis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page »
So you desperately need choices. Well, I think I can help. By the way, the FEC wants to warn you against the persistent myth that it officially recognizes the people on this roster of declared "candidates" as candidates. Not true, says press spokesperson Sharon Snyder. Getting your name on the list only means that you mailed the FEC a letter announcing your intention to run. The government's definition of presidential candidate, says Snyder, is someone who meets the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's standard of having "raised or spent $5000." By that measure, only 23 of the current 202 file-ees qualify. OK, got it. Myth shattered. But for our purposes, we'll go with the more sophomoric definition: A candidate is anyone with the motivation to apply tongue liquor to envelope gum and mail a letter, card, or bar napkin announcing that he or she will fight for snoozing rights to the Lincoln Bedroom. Every four years journalists take this list and roam through its pages to produce the familiar "kooky" round-ups of fringe presidential campaigns. The Boston Globe weighed in December 26, with a crisply done genre specimen that displayed both the strengths and weaknesses of such coverage. On the up side, there was fine raw information on quadrennial greats like Harold Stassen (at 84, he's just run in his eighth New Hampshire primary) and Lyndon LaRouche (fifth campaign, hampered this time by the fact that he's cooling his buns on federal cell-block concrete in Minnesota); and on exciting newcomers like Tom (Billy Jack) Laughlin and Charles Woods, a wealthy Nevada businessman who is running on a classical anti-Federal Reserve, extreme-right-wing platform. On the down side, daily newspapers have limited space, so surveys of a field this big have little room for analysis. What motivates subcultural politicians? Who are they? Do they have the kind of small-d democratic goals and inspirational values that could change the way we elect presidents in this country? We aren't told. The Globe writer plastered over these questions by quoting humorist Dave Barry (who is wackily running for president but did not wackily file with the FEC) on the question of motives. "Barry said he and the others all want the same thing - `a big free airplane and the chance to invite Julia Roberts to the White House.'" Heh heh. It's easy to criticize, of course. When I began my own search - pausing for a moment to look at the telephone and dread it as the prickle-backed fiend it can become in these situations - the snickering ceased. I discovered, fast, that most people who lust after commander-in-chief powers don't list their telephone numbers, and that some who do probably shouldn't. My first "successful" call was to "Alamo" Scott, whose Lubbock, Texas, extension rang with that eerie, burpy rumble often produced by calls to The Outback - ample warning that one is entering uncharted turf. He picked up, listened to my spiel, calmly said, "Oh yes," like he expected this very call at this exact moment, then delivered the following rantatorial in a breathy growl.
write your comment
|