It is presidential primary season again. Of course, this makes no difference in Nevada, because we have caucuses.
What is a caucus? Well, first off, it's a word that sounds kind of dirty. I can see a confused mother washing out a 4 year old's mouth if that child said "caucus." It just doesn't sound appropriate. Consider the following sentences.
Al Gore is having a serious problem with his caucus.
My cat likes licking his caucus.
George W. Bush's head seems to be filled with some serious caucus.
No, a caucus is an event in which people--but not all people, just certain people who can hear the word "caucus" without snickering--get together somewhere and vote for various presidential candidates. Caucuses are supposed to be somewhat serious events, I guess, although I am not sure what they were drinking at the Nevada Democratic Caucuses, which were held Sunday. Whatever it was they were drinking, it must have been pretty damn special.
I am not making this up: While Al Gore gathered most of the votes, others who gained votes included: Lyndon LaRouche, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader and Alfred E. Newman. Quite frankly, Alfred may be the most serious candidate of that bunch, except for the fact that he looks way too much like George W. Bush (seriously--take a good gander ol' Dubbya the next time he's blathering on TV).
Anyway, I think the whole idea of Nevada caucuses is stupid anyway. Why can't we have a simple primary like all of the important states, such as New Hampshire?
In this one sense, Nevada needs to be more like New Hampshire. New Hampshire (also known as "Vermont") is--no disrespect intended--a podunk state which should have about as much political clout as Alan Keyes' underwear. Yet, every four years, it (New Hampshire, not Alan Keyes' underwear) is the focal point of political campaigns for months, because it has the traditional first presidential primary.
Meanwhile, in Nevada, tipsy Democrats get together and vote for Hillary Clinton, who isn't even running for president, because she's already been in office for the maximum eight years.
I have a modest proposal: I think Nevada should start having a presidential primary. We'll screw over good ol' New Hampshire by having ours earlier. New Hampshire had their primary in February; I say we hold ours in February the year before.
Just imagine the fun the Silver State could have had by holding a presidential primary in February 1999. All the candidates were running by then anyway, and all the really kooky ones were still in the race, including Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan (as a Republican) and Steve Forbes. They could have visited a school; imagine how fun this would have been. Dan Quayle could have told all the kids they were in "schoole"; Buchanan could have spoken of how Hitler was misunderstood; and Steve Forbes' face could have scared the living daylights out of all the kids.
Um, never mind. Maybe those three shouldn't be let near a school. Or a child. Or another human being. Heck, are we even sure that Quayle, Buchanan and Forbes are human beings?
Anyway, back to my original point, which is that Nevada needs a primary. Why shouldn't the voters--all of them--have a say in who their parties nominate for the highest office in the land? I mean, just because Nevada voters have made some bad decisions in the past (we actually sent a man named Chic Hecht to Washington once), it doesn't mean we shouldn't have another chance.
If the state did have a presidential primary, it would get more people interested in the presidential race. It would foster political awareness.
And, yes, it would allow one more thing: for Nevada to be just a little bit more like New Hampshire--which, by the way, is one of Dan Quayle's favorite states, because it really does have an "e" on the end of its name.
Jimmy Boegle is a fifth-generation Nevadan who is disappointed that Alfred E. Newman's candidacy never got off the ground. His (Jimmy's, not Alfred E. Newman's) column appears here Tuesdays, and he can be reached via e-mail at jiboegle@stanfordalumni.org.