The late 19th century Republican equivalent of Karl Rove, Mark Hanna, once made a statement about money and politics that sounds best when it is put in the form of the quote about winning in sports that for years has been attributed, perhaps incorrectly, to the legendary Green Bay Packers pro football coach, Vince Lombardi: "Money isn't everything; it's the only thing."

Yes, indeed, if you've got the money in politics, you're going win, so goes the conventional wisdom. If you ain't got the dough, just don't bother to show (up). Well, that rule has a lot of wisdom behind it, and that is why I support public financing for all elections. But every rule is made to be broken, and boy it has been shattered by this year's presidential primaries in both parties. For once, positions, real or manufactured for the moment, do matter. Let's take a look.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul, who has run a relatively inexpensive campaign, has raised oodles of money. He has managed to finish in the single digits in almost all of the Republican primaries. Why? His positions form an incomprehensible stew of libertarianism on the economic side and total control of free-thought on such issues as the right to choose. And oh yes, he is an isolationist. Positions do count.

Mike Huckabee has "no money" (or at least we are told he has none. My suspicion is that somewhere, somehow, his base of support in the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement is funneling money to him, off the books. For sure he is receiving "independent" support from such groups as "Americans for the Preservation of American Culture," "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain" [which has distributed a leaflet that accused McCain of collaborating with the Vietnamese during his years as a prisoner of war] and "Common Sense Issues" [January 18, 2008 - from ABC 7 WJLA [1] Washington].)

However, he is gregarious, quick-witted, smiley-faced, would make a very good late night talk show host (and would be able to supply, apparently, a nice set of non-union writers -- that is unless he really thinks up all those one-liners himself), and gets on the TV political talk-fests all the time because he is such a good talker. But his positions have brought him a strong following: Far Christian Right that is setting the Ten Commandments (in his preferred English translation up there right alongside the Constitution), strongly "pro-gun," total freedom in the ownership of guns (how many bazookas and machine guns are the limit, Gov, or none?), and repealing the 16th (income tax) Amendment along with passing the "homosexuals are second-class citizens" and the "belief that life begins at the time of viablity is hereby criminalized" amendments. Positions do count.

Mitt Romney had tons of (his own) money. He's gone. His flip-flopping, especially on the issues dear to the hearts of Republicans who vote in the primaries, made John Kerry look stiff as a board. And Romney himself came across as rather stiff, too, especially his hair. Positions do count.

John McCain was literally out of money last summer. He now apparently has the Republican nomination locked up. While the Republican establishment, for reasons that have yet to become truly apparent, characterize him as some kind of liberal, his totally manufactured image of being the "Straight-Talker" (see my "He Really Said That" [1]) and what is truly a mostly straight right-wing track record attracted enough votes in a very weak Republican field to get him apparently the Republican nomination. Positions do count.

And then there was Rudy (who I thought would get the Republican nomination, with Huckabee as his VP candidate. Can't be right all the time, although Huckabee now stands a very good chance of being VP nominee with McCain.) Tons of money. Far-Right on everything except the mind-control issues so dear to the hearts of the Republican base. Fuhgeddaboudit. Positions do count.

On the Democratic side, more briefly, Hillary Clinton began with tons of money. Clinton just had to "lend" her campaign $5 million. (Just where the heck did a U.S. Senator and former First Lady get that kind of money is another question I hope somebody starts asking.) Barack Obama began with none. Obama has raised tons, mostly from small donors. Thus at least until recently, both campaigns have been very well funded. But Obama has come from nowhere to his current position of being in a virtual tie with the former frontrunner. Positions, or in Obama's case mostly so far, the message (of Hope, with some specifics on positions not in the dominant position in his campaign), do count.

I will not go into further detail on the Democratic side, except to say that in the case of Dennis Kucinich, an exception to what is happening this year. If he had had at least some money, he might have done better because of his positions, which do count so much with an important part of the Democratic base. The same might be said for John Edwards (although I think that he mainly proved that on the Democratic side, anger doesn't sell).

This is a vital lesson to learn as we go into this election. Money is not the only thing in politics. You've got to have it, but this year especially, with the future of U.S. Constitutional Democracy as the most important issue facing our nation (even as yet in most unrecognized as such), positions are front and center.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for the Web zine The Political Junkies.net [2]; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; and an invited contributor to the Web log The Daily Scare [3]. 

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash [4] | delicious [5] | digg [6] | yahoo [7] | technorati [8]