FULL COLUMN - SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD-WINNING COLUMN
The caucuses are coming
BY DAVID JAKIELO
I’m sure you are well aware that in less than three months the Democratic presidential caucuses will begin, except for those of you with any semblance of a social life, in which case you are not only wondering what a caucus is, but if it is in fact a dirty word.
What the forthcoming caucuses indicate is that there will be a presidential election in 2004. Currently there are nine candidates politicking to win the democratic nomination. Whoever receives this nomination will then face republican George W. Bush for the presidency. People everywhere (minus everywhere plus Washington, D.C.) are very excited about the presidential election process. I will be particularly interested in seeing if the American public has become any brighter since the 2000 election when they found the voting process to be more complicated than completing tax forms and accidentally voted for people like O.J. Simpson, Kermit The Frog and George W. Bush.
Along the campaign trail, candidates introduce themselves to the voting public by participating in debates. This provides the presidential hopefuls with the opportunity to make spontaneous comments regarding political affairs that, in turn, will showcase their personality. However, this never happens, because a politician’s idea of being spontaneous is loosening his tie while watching C-SPAN. Furthermore, it’s easier to find Osama Bin Laden than a politician with a personality.
If you’re like me, you probably have no actual political views of your own. Therefore, a debate with dorky candidates talking about their political agendas is something you would not find interesting to watch even if you were tripping on acid.
I recently watched a debate (acid free, I swear!) and observed that none of the bland candidates stand out. The nine candidates, with surgically implanted smiles, were all dressed in similar looking dark suits, except for Joe Lieberman and female candidate Carol Moseley Braun, who were wearing conservative business skirts. Here, in a nutshell, is what I got out of the debate:
All the candidates agree on one subject: essentially, Adolph Hitler would be a better president than the incumbent George Dubya.
Senator John Kerry appears to be a remote controlled Abraham Lincoln constructed by a group of democratic scientists.
Pretty boy Senator John Edwards would get my nomination for the candidate that I would be most willing to throw off of the Washington Monument.
In my opinion, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and Representative Richard Gephardt are the three best candidates, but I’m pretty sure that the first time they kissed a member of the opposite sex was around the age of 25.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, who said during a recent debate, “You can’t plant a watermelon seed and grow oranges,” has a brain the size of a watermelon seed.
On a positive note, I am happy to report that these debates would be highly successful in curing insomnia.
I understand that many people have probably never heard of these candidates, let alone watched a debate. A shocking report recently released by Nielsen Media Research showed that the entire viewing audience for the Oct. 26 debate solely consisted of candidate Dennis Kucinich’s family (they couldn’t find the remote), the cameraman and myself.
The debates are a joke because the candidates know that honesty is no way to gain maximum votes. For example, when debating in the South a candidate might say, “If you elect me, I will make sure that the nonsense known as the Emancipation Proclamation gets torn up!” Then, when debating in the North they will tell people, “Anyone caught waving the Confederate flag will be brought to Gettysburg and shot!”
(If elected to office these contradictions are erased because committees are assigned to inform the president of what his political views should be, namely, raise taxes so that everyone with a government job gets not only a raise but also a book deal. Speeches are then written for the president, which he delivers from the bottom of his heart while reading off of a teleprompter.)
I’ll tell you what, if there was a charismatic candidate that talked about issues people really care about, there would be more interest. Imagine if a male candidate made statements like:
On his first act as president: “I want every female intern summoned to the oval office so that we can get down Democratic Party style!”
On the death penalty: “I would strongly enforce the death penalty on whoever brought back hats with mesh backing and people that order $12 steaks and complain that they asked for it to be done medium well, instead of medium, even though they actually have no idea what they are talking about.”
So if nobody cares about the candidates, how does someone eventually get elected president? I conducted a survey where I put each candidates face and name on a piece of paper and asked various students who they would vote for. The majority of people said they knew nothing about the candidates and based their vote on looks alone. Conducting this poll showed that not only will Howard Dean win the presidential Democratic nomination but that I am coming up with very innovative ways to make conversation with girls that I find attractive.
As an American, you have the right to vote. You should take this responsibility seriously, even if learning about the candidates rivals the excitement level of getting audited by the I.R.S.
Personally, I’m voting for Kermit.
To purchase "College on the Rocks" and read this entire column, click here.
