The myth of electability

So I am annoyed about how Americans only think about voting for someone who is "electable". What makes a candidate electable? Is it the lack of new ideas? Is it the homogenous look of a politician? How about the inability to stick to one opinion? Or maybe it's just the ability to completely avoid any answering any questions with a definitive answer. Regardless, the "electable" label means that the candidate is someone who shouldn't be elected. Romney is considered "electable", but what about him is worth electing? If actually looking at policy and experience, there is no way that Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, Obama or Edwards would be considered front runners. Instead it would be the guys like Richardson, Paul, Kucinich, Biden, McCain or Dodd.



I am not a Republican, but I am also not a Democrat. I believe that both parties are horrible and only those who depart from the centrist (or better known as spineless) policies of the major campaigns. I used to really like Obama, but his campaign has dropped the ball by not being strong enough on change, especially in Iraq. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (The CEO) all say that they will not pull troops out from Iraq until after 2013, making the war in Iraq the longest in America's history (beating the Vietnam war) and bankrupting the nation in the process. With a war that costs $8,000+ PER PERSON, it would seem foolish to remain in Iraq, yet The CEO wont commit to ANYTHING. The war was a disaster from day one, as it was a distraction from an already pointless war: the "War on Terror", but now it has become more than just a military problem, it is affecting the global economy as a whole. If you look at the CEO, they really have no differences in policy, the only difference is whether you want a feminist, a black lawyer or a white lawyer.



I believe that electability should come from the three most important aspects of a presidential candidate: Ideas, Intellect, Experience. Looking at the Republican debates, there are really only two men who fulfill those three parameters and they are Ron Paul and John McCain. On the democratic side, it's Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd and Biden. Funny how those are the ones who are considered less electable. I can understand Biden being looked over because he puts his foot in his mouth all the time, and Richardson is just not good in front of camera, but the others are all eloquent and right on the ball. In the election, the most ideas come from fringe candidates, and Ron Paul is the only one who has been able to shift attention to himself because he dominates every debate. It doesn't matter that he only gets half the time of Romney or Guiliani, he says a lot more and doesn't spend his whole time with pre-written statements and buzzwords. Kucinich is the Democratic idea candidate. His ideas are intelligent and logical. He has always supported peace and freedom and those are the core beliefs of this country, aren't they?



Peace and Freedom, isn't that what the Quakers and Pilgrims wanted? How come we don't seem to be pushing for those ideas here in the country today? We are moving in the exact opposite direction, pushing for more war and more restrictions on personal rights. The country has become a police state, with more laws and rules keeping people from being truly free than ever before. Instead of "Communist" being the dirty word, it has become "Terrorist", and that word seems to automatically mean "Muslim" to 99.999% of Americans. The funny thing is that most terrorism in the world is home grown. Terrorist attacks happen in Muslim countries, but they also happen in Christian countries as well. England became a police state a long time ago (to an extent, it's like Vegas with the cameras, but they do have some personal freedoms too) because of WHITE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by a white Christian man from the heartland of America. Terrorism is not about religion or politics in reality, because there are billions of people who are religious or highly political, but the only ones who are terrorists are the fanatics.



So what does it all mean? Will we elect someone who has ideas and plans? Obviously not, since the top candidates on both sides are people who are clearly in politics for personal gain. Clinton had no need to become a senator, just like Guiliani has no need to be President. They both had positions of power and were both known nationwide, but when they were no longer in their position, they felt the need to grab for power and both ran for NY senate. Obviously anyone running for president has to have a certain amount of ego, but those two got into the race simply for egotistical reasons and not to spur major change. If the two of them really wanted to make a difference, they would have been able to without being in the race, but they never tried anything except being on TV. Guiliani is somehow considered a "hero" because he let his city get attacked and then spent a bunch of hours in front of TV cameras. Clinton is respected because her husband was a great president, but her time in politics shows that she is nothing more than a political gainster who will say anything as long as it helps her career. Are these really people who are qualified for the presidency? Name one idea that either has and compare it to the boldest members of each party (Kucinich, Gravel and Paul), you will find that the top candidates are truly spineless.



In the months to come, ask yourself the question: What's really important to me? If it's the constitution and individual rights, you have to vote for Ron Paul. If it's peace and freedom, you have to vote for Dennis Kucinich. If it's international respect, you have to vote for John McCain, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Obama is his own breed, I just think he's 4 years too early and would probably make a better VP or Senate Majority Leader. But if you want to elect another George Bush, just feel free to elect Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney because they are the candidates who don't belong. Just because you have a famous spouse doesn't mean that you are qualified to be president. Just because you have lots of money doesn't mean you are qualified to be president. Just because you were on TV a lot (whether as an actor like Thompson or as a headline grabber like Guiliani) doesn't mean you are at all qualified for president. If those are the things that qualify one for president, we may soon see Maria Shriver running against Bill Gates. Or Homer Simpson against Richie Rich, they're just as qualified. So before you put yourself behind a candidate, try to take the time to look at the others, you'll be surprised how much more you agree with a second tier candidate than the mainstream one. That's how I discovered Chuck Bednarik and Dennis Kucinich in '04, and how I found Paul this year. If you look too, maybe we'll be choosing the better of two greats instead of the lesser of two evils.