Presidential Contenders: Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest

If you’re like me, you’re already sick of the 2012 presidential election. The near-perpetual campaign season is tiresome, and it’s only going to get worse. I’m on record as blaming Iowa and New Hampshire for a lot of this foolishness, but let me also say that Fox News and the rest of the cable news operators are doing their best to dumb down an important election into something akin to Dancing With the Stars.

As a public service, I give you my assessment of the candidates, and a prediction of how it will all turn out in 2012. With this as your guide, you can quit watching candidate debates and devote more time to American Idol and Biggest Loser.

Republicans
Herman Cain - This guy is exactly the kind of fringe candidate who used to get ignored by the national media. He doesn’t understand the Constitution. He doesn’t understand what separation of church and state means. How did this jackass ever run a successful company? He will be gone after the first caucus, if not before.

Michelle Bachmann - Another fringe candidate. Honestly, how is she any different from the “Rent is Too Damn High” guy from New York? She is aggressively stupid, and has been saying aggressively stupid things for years. This may seem sexist, but if she was ugly, she would be ignored.

Mitt Romney - First, the negatives: He stands for absolutely nothing. He will say anything to get a vote. Now, the positives: He has the best chance to be the GOP nominee by simply appearing to be more normal than the rest of these clowns. He should offer to debate Rick Perry daily. Will the fact that he’s a Mormon matter?

Rick Perry - Talk about aggressively stupid. If the national media covered the campaign with any sort of depth or insight (I know), they would know that Perry is essentially a figurehead in Texas government. All the power in Texas resides in the Senate, and the Lt. Governor. Perry has been along for the ride for 10 years as governor, but the more he speaks outside Texas, the more people see that he is a male Michelle Bachmann. Imagine the evil, monstrous offspring those two would have...

Is anyone else running? Seriously?

Oh, yeah.


Ron Paul - He's entertaining, I'll give him that. Maybe someone will make him an ambassador to Oz, or something.


Newt Gingrich - His succubus wife torpedoed his campaign before it even started. Gingrich's ego is so big he doesn't realize that everyone hates him. Literally everyone.


Jon Huntsman - Who the hell is this guy? He was Obama’s ambassador to China? He was governor of Utah? Why does anyone like this guy? Or listen to him?

Rick Santorum - Who is this guy kidding?

I have not listed Sarah Palin as a candidate, because she is not one. She’s also not a politician; she is a media personality, little different than a Kardashian. Palin is all about money and the spotlight, and she can get that without running for President.

The Esteemed Incumbent
Barack Obama - What a tremendous failure. Jimmy Carter could kick his ass. How does a guy take office with a filibuster-proof majority and piss it away so quickly? Not once has Obama acted like he was in the majority. He may be the worst political negotiator of all time. I would love to play poker with this guy. I remember thinking during the 2008 campaign that he sounded good, and would maybe make a good President in a few years, with more experience under his belt, but not now. It’s easy to see now, the lack of executive experience, the gullibility. Still, to his credit, he didn’t pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Here’s what will happen: All but Romney and Perry will fall by the wayside early in 2012, leaving those two to fight for the nomination. It will be close, but Romney will win the GOP nomination, because he will say fewer stupid things than Perry. Conventional wisdom will say that Romney is the Republican with the best chance to defeat Obama, and everyone except the Tea Party fanatics will swallow that whole.

A few Tea Party lunatics will break off and try to run a third party candidate, but they won’t be able to get on enough state ballots to mount a serious challenge. They will, however, cost Romney a couple of states in November.

President Obama will be re-elected, because he will make a series of mesmerizing stump speeches, and he will absolutely obliterate Romney in the televised debates.

Four years later, no one will admit to ever voting for Obama either time.

A National Primary: The Cure to Iowa and New Hampshire

I don’t like to argue politics, but this is an issue that’s been bugging me, and it’s really not a Democrat vs. Republican argument.

It’s time for a national primary to select our candidates for President of the United States. Think about the current system: a bunch of idiots in Iowa and New Hampshire basically control who we will be able to vote for in November. Is it fair to rest the nation’s future on how a candidate shakes someone’s hand in a cornfield, or how well they tip a coffee shop waitress? Are the people of Iowa and New Hampshire especially wise? Do their needs jibe with ours? I say no.

Presidential preference primaries were a 20th-century creation, an effort to give more of a voice to the common voter and stem the influence of party bosses. Methods might differ from state to state, but the end result was a slate of delegates to the national party conventions - where the party bosses could still make deals in smoke-filled rooms and nominate someone else.

Conventional wisdom in today’s presidential politics says that a candidate must do well in Iowa - or New Hampshire - to have a chance at that party’s nomination. Just think about that for a minute. How stupid! Why Iowa and New Hampshire? Why not South Dakota and Delaware? It makes no sense when you begin to question the current set-up.

None of this, mind you, is spelled out in the Constitution. The parties have been making and changing the process since the 1820s. Nothing about primaries, or conventions for that matter, is sacred. So let’s change it!

As with most things in modern society, the undue influence of money and media has warped the political process. Many would argue that without the primary system, the less-well-funded candidate doesn’t stand a chance to get his or her message to the voters. But does a candidate without a big war-chest stand a chance in the current system? Let’s not kid ourselves.

Here’s what we should do:

1. Let’s take the television money out of the equation. Paid political ads will only be allowed during a two-week period leading up to the national primary (and, later, the general election). Every qualifying candidate gets the same amount of commercial time. I think France does this. Direct mail, telephone banks and personal appearances are permissible before, during, and after that two-week period.

2. We need a qualifying standard for candidates to participate in the national primary. Do they need to qualify in all 50 states? I say no, because that would eliminate the less-well-funded candidate. What should that qualifying standard be? Maybe they should be required to take a test and undergo a background check, like many people do when they apply for real jobs.

3. Let’s set the voting date for the national primary some time in May; a different date for each party. You can only vote in the primary if you’re registered in that party. We’ll have nationally-televised “debates” with each of the qualifying candidates invited to participate. And if there are, say, 15 qualifying candidates? Fine. Pop an extra bag of popcorn and settle in.

4. Let’s hold a runoff for each party, if necessary, in August. If one candidate doesn’t get 50 percent of the primary vote, then we take the top 3 or 4 to a runoff. Many states do that now with local elections. We won’t need party conventions, because they have turned into bloated television commercials that no one watches anyway. A party nominee could run on his own platform, his own ideas and convictions, without being hamstrung by a party platform plank insisted on by a vocal minority.

5. Here’s the best part. Let’s say the Republicans don’t have a candidate who can get 50 percent of the primary or runoff vote; then the top 2 Republicans both wind up on the November election ballot. Same with the Democrats. We might have a November presidential election with four candidates from the two parties. Now you have crossover voting - Ds can vote for Rs, and vice versa. Alternatively, maybe those candidates team up as candidate-running mate. Maybe they each choose a running mate.

6. What about Independents? We would need a qualifying standard for them as well. Maybe we lump them, along with the odd qualifying third-party candidate, into a catch-all primary. Or maybe they have a different qualifying standard to participate in the general election.

The bottom line is that voters would have more choices than they do in the current system. Over time, this might even lead to the creation of a legitimate third or fourth party - or, best of all, maybe the current political parties would fade away.

We shouldn’t be afraid to change the current system. Who knows? Something good might happen.