Fast and Furious

Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com

I suppose I'm no different than anyone else in this respect. I tend to extrapolate from what I learn from family and friends, particularly if they are thoughtful, well-rooted people.

Over the weekend, I had an enjoyable marathon phone conversation with one of my sisters, an intense discussion with a member of the adult Sunday School class I teach, and a very extensive email dialogue with a friend. Up until the last week, their interest in the 2008 presidential race ran from moderate to virtually non-existent. Now, suddenly, each wanted to share ideas and opinions about candidates from both political parties.

In the course of the back and forth, I suggested what was obvious (at least to me) a year ago is no less obvious today. If you get caught up in the wave of the moment, you're going to miss it as it recedes and/or overlook other waves of support as they hit the beach.

I wouldn't predict then, nor now, who will win the respective party nominations for President. What I would say is that this is the most unusual--and unpredictable-- contest I've kept tabs on since the day I plopped down in front of the old black and white to watch Kennedy debate Nixon.

Why the uncertainty? Some of the reasons are obvious. For example, there is no incumbent running for a second term or a vice president seeking to win the presidency on his own.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Clinton is a new breed of candidate, someone who is simultaneously seeking to run as a third-term Clintonista ("weren't the 1990s glorious?") and pass herself off as a "change agent." Sen. Obama is the first major African-American presidential candidate. All the Democrats vie for the affections of the pro-abortion organizations and PACS.

Although you'd never know it from reading the "mainstream media," the Republicans have a number of serious candidates.

NRLC has endorsed pro-life former Senator Fred Thompson, who has thrown himself into the Iowa caucuses with renewed enthusiasm and increased organizational resources.

The irony is, of course, that many people who ought to have known better told us for most of 2007 that the "only" candidate--or surely the most likely candidate--to defeat Sen. Clinton is pro-abortion former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In fact, he was the only serious candidate who had/has little or no chance to defeat Clinton. Giuliani is not only hopelessly out of touch with the base of the GOP party, he would be mincemeat for the Clinton machine, which continues to bring new meaning to the term "sleazy."

Sen. Clinton is running her own variation of the same theme: you must select me because you must select me because my selection is inevitable. This not only is a circular argument, it conveniently obscures the obvious truth: (to borrow from Gertrude Stein) there is no there there.

Another reason for the volatility is that we've already had at least one issue which we were told would be the most pressing, cutting-edge issue next November diminish in importance. Others are now competitors for that top slot. In fact, there will probably be several defining issues, at least one of which is not even registering on the political radar as I write this.

So, just keep reading Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News. (You have ordered additional copies of the special January 22 Commemorative Issue, haven't you? On the off-chance you haven't, go to http://www.nrlc.org/news/Jan222008Ad.htm. Better yet call us at 202-626-8828.)

Even if you are only marginally interested in politics, this is a fascinating moment in our history. Talk to you tomorrow.

If you have thoughts or comments on this, please write to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.