As I returned to campus from spring break, I overheard some middle-aged pundits discussing the election campaigns.
One mentioned how the Republicans were the superior party because they could pick their candidate in a streamlined, straightforward, clean way - whereas the Democrats were too busy fighting and throwing mud to come up with a candidate or even a basic policy.
This argument is part of the larger claim that the Democrats are too busy squabbling internally to handle running the country. But since when is debate a bad thing? I have always been under the impression that diversity of opinions and ideas is a healthy thing, and that voicing these differences leads to a more stable government with more moderate policies.
Furthermore, perhaps the reason the Republicans picked John McCain so quickly was not because they are especially streamlined or efficient, but because, quite simply, the other candidates sucked - which will in turn lead to his, and the party's, demise.
Let's look at the former Republican field:
John McCain, of course, won the nomination with ease. And what's not to like? He's a Vietnam veteran with plenty of experience in politics. He has an air of honesty about him and appears to be a genuinely caring individual, while still retaining that tough military composure. Unfortunately, he's 71 and has a lot of policy baggage (such as continually supporting the war in Iraq). Also, considering that he was born in the Panama Canal zone, it's arguable that he's not even eligible to run.
Mike Huckabee. Possibly the worst candidate in the pack - and the scary part is, he got a sizable chunk of the vote in many states. Huckabee has likened homosexuality to bestiality, and believes strongly in creationism. I'm sorry, but I don't want someone who thinks that God put people on this Earth six thousand years ago to have the nuclear launch codes.
Mitt Romney. The worst conservative ever. The Republican governor of Massachusetts is probably as liberal as, if not more than, the average Democrat. The fact that he even tried to run is simply laughable - it's pretty hard to hide your liberal tendencies when you go on record for them.
And then there's Rudy Giuliani, who wins the award for most cracked out campaign strategy ever. Because his only support came from his home state and Florida (the place to which all New Yorkers inevitably move), he decided to skip the early primary states and just work hard in Florida. But what the former New York mayor forgot is that the first primary states essentially make or break candidates. Skipping the early primary states because you're inevitably going to lose them may be an inauspicious sign for your candidacy.
On the Democratic side, candidates Obama and Clinton are locked in an epic battle for delegates. Along with fighting tooth and nail, this dead heat brings in media attention and money. Barack and Hillary have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of their campaigns, while the Arizona senator has spent far less. By winning so easily, McCain thus starts out with a far less battle-hardened campaign staff and a weaker fundraising system.
The final result? McCain's cushy ride and the Republicans' "streamlined" and "efficient" selection process will prove costly. While the Democrats may not yet have a candidate, they still hold the media spotlight and continue to rake in the cash. When a Democratic nomination is finally announced, the candidate will be in a far more advantageous position than Senator McCain. The Republican party's efficiency may end up being its own Achilles heel.
Dave Adams is a freshman majoring in political science and economics.
