Thursday, September 25, 2008

Debates have become 'must-see TV'

A Republican candidate for President has to be off-the-edge extreme to lose South Dakota's electoral votes, but it happened to Sen. Barry Goldwater back in 1964.

Yes, 44 years ago South Dakota actually supported a Democratic presidential candidate when the Lyndon Johnson/Hubert Humphrey ticket received 55.61 percent of the vote to the 44.39 percent earned by Goldwater/Miller.

Before checking the archives at the Secretary of State's website, I had assumed that, at least during the height of World War II, South Dakota might have supported President Roosevelt, but no. This rock-ribbed Republican stronghold voted for that party's candidates in both 1940 and 1944. In 1936, perhaps because he had held the nation together during the Depression, South Dakota supported the FDR/Garner ticket to the tune of 54.02 percent. (Probably because Alf Landon's vice presidential runningmate was named Knox.)

There's little doubt that South Dakota will go Republican as usual at the end of the current presidential campaign, regardless of the circumstances, and that is, to a certain extent, frustrating to one such as me who has no intention of voting that way.

One minute I'm thinking to myself, what's the sense of bothering to vote because we know how South Dakota will go, but in the next minute I remind myself that, in every case, not voting at all is a disgusting response, even if one's candidate or pet issue loses. For that matter, even if one overlooks the presidential race, we have a U.S. Senate seat and a U.S. House seat to fill, legislative races to decide and, as usual in South Dakota, a whole armload of assorted ballot issues, most of which people have referred to a vote.

So do your duty, pick up your absentee ballot now or vote on Nov. 4. (A reminder: If your voter registration is not updated, you have until Oct. 20 to get that done. Shame on you if you don't.)

Even before the Republican Party chose a 72-year-old two-time cancer patient as its presidential candidate and a woman from Wasilla, Alaska, who has a rifle rack showing in the back window of her pickup cab as its vice presidential nominee, I had determined that they don't get my vote. And even though you didn't ask why and you probably don't care what anybody in the Big Bad Media thinks, I'll tell you why.

About a month ago I heard one of the television commentators ask aloud the question that had crossed my mind way back in January when the primary elections began. And that question is this: What part of the past eight years makes the Republican Party deserving of another four (or probably eight) years in the White House? What makes them worthy of being rewarded for the last eight years?

Since the first time each of us began taking social studies and learning about the governmental process in our country, we learned that we have a powerful weapon to use against office-holders with whom we disagree---vote them out of office when the next election comes around. You may say that President Bush (and Cheney and Rumsfeld, et al.) aren't running for re-election so I shouldn't use that reasoning. Sorry, but what is my alternative? Pretending that Sen. McCain is a new man, a maverick, a reformer, even though he's been in the U.S. Senate for more than two decades is a bit of a stretch.

That's my take. I realize that the majority of voters in this state disagree with me. But whichever way you have decided to vote, just be sure to do it, either now in advance or at the polls on Election Day.

Regardless of your political persuasions and mine, we can agree that the debates this year should draw all-time record numbers of television viewers, starting Friday night when Sen. Obama and possibly even Sen. McCain face the questioning of Jim Lehrer on the campus at Ole Miss. It's enough to make me consider skipping high school football this week to stay home to watch the debate live. Rest assured, however, that the cable news networks will be rebroadcasting the debate later in the evening and early-morning hours if you aren't home to see it when it happens live.

Then there will come the one debate between Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin next Thursday, Oct. 2, followed by two more presidential candidate debates on Oct. 7 and Oct. 15.

In this crazy, memorable year of incredible interest in politics, these four debates could tip the scales. Even not, they will make for fascinating television viewing.

Thanks for reading this far as I expressed my views. I respect yours as well, even you who will reply to this as "Anonymous."

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So Park,

As a liberal I guess you wouldn't hire a person because of their gender, their age, and their medical history? How compassionate the liberals are. Since when do liberals think women should remain barefoot and pregnant? Stay home and raise the kids. A little hypocrisy on the left? lol.

It's amazing that it took the libs 8 years to develop "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Palin has accomplished it in mere weeks. How can she be such a lightning rod? Does the left FEAR her? Hmmm. Me thinks they protest too much.

Yes, the liberal Democrats are certainly compassionate folks. Those hateful Conservatives, however, are racist if they disagree with the socialistic world view Obama has? Now I see. We must agree with Obama's view that we need to "spread the wealth around," or we must be racist. If Obama becomes President will this prove that America is no longer a racist country, or will every disagreement with Obama only be viewed as "they just don't like my policies because I don't look like the folks on the dollar bill."

I am wondering if all liberals think with their "feelings," instead of using their brain.

Just in case you are wondering, this is not how I feel about things, this is how I THINK about things.

Steve Lomheim,
Clinging to my guns and religion.

Anonymous said...

August 26, 2008 Parker Knox said -

"Now this week I'm watching the political coverage from morning to midnight. I seldom turn to the Republican news channel, otherwise known as Fox News (you know, "fair and balanced" and all that hogwash?). Every time I do, they seem to be interviewing some Republican. I wonder whom they will talk to next week in St. Paul?"

September 25, 2008 anonymous said -

"Considering there is only ONE non biased (FOX) network, your bashing it is not called for. They present both sides. How about the dozens of other (very Democrat slanted) channels - which are VERY biased????? Open your ears and eyes when you watch TV next time.

I have lost all respect for you -"

October 18, 2008 Steve Lomheim said -

"Dear Anonymous,

"lost all respect?"

That seems to be a comment made in the heat of the moment. Either that or you don't know Parker. Parker was my music teacher in High School in the 70's. Unless he's changed I know him as a modest, kind, gentle, warm, loving, down to Earth, family guy type. I don't lose respect for a man due to his political opinions.

You must know that Parker is/was not only teacher but a journalist. Knowing that and the fact that he was a TEACHER who TAUGHT JOURNALISM!!! (Does NEA come to mind?) It should not surprise you that someone with that background would see Fox News calling itself "fair and balanced," as "hogwash."

We know from actual polling of journalists themselves that MOST are liberal. Plus there are other stories from the Journalists themselves such as this one - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485 - that you can dig the info out if you read it carefully --- "MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties." ---

Now the Democrat candidate, Obama, has come out swinging against Fox News. He has said that he would be up about 3 or 4 points if not for Fox News. LOL! Since the organizations in the tank for Obama include - CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Rueters, AP, LA Times, he says ONE cable network, Fox News is holding him back. Haaaaaaaaaa! If it were not for these organizations that are clearly in the tank for him, there would be no Obama! Now, since I am sure that the liberals see all the "Obama" news organizations as "right down the middle," wouldn't it make sense that they see Fox News as "far right wing." You must have empathy here. It is all a matter of perception.

You won't change a man's view of the world who has been around as long as Parker. One who I am sure thought Walter Cronkite was the most "fair and balanced" anchor since Dan Rather. lol.

I think you must separate the man from his politics when discussing "respect." Come on now. Think about it. Think with your brain, rather than your "feelings." We know which team thinks with their emotions. And we know which party takes advantage of that fact."

It seems Parker doesn't have much "respect" for Hillary Clinton. I have to agree with that. However, maybe Parker's disrespect for her is due to the fact that she has come out saying that Fox News indeed WAS the most "fair" newtwork during the primaries. Hmm. Could be!

Steve Lomheim

Anonymous said...

This is a photo of Parker's 1972 All State Chorus. Click the "picture" hyperlink above.

Steve Lomheim