In Observing the debates, caucuses and the primary in New Hampshire for both parties, although the media seems to disagree with me, I have seen no outright clear leader in either party except in mediocrity. With all the candidates in the Republican ring and the few on the Democratic side, it is becoming acutely obvious that we have severely limited choices in this years presidential election. We appear to have no one that we can seriously get behind, at least in what I've seen as our possible options. Even the Democrats seem to have this dilemma within their own party. At the Iowa caucus some polling stations flipped coins to determine a winner in their precincts. I have a feeling that a lot of voters will be doing the same. On the other hand, a lot of people have made their decision and have supported a candidate, but I feel that most are just attempts at choosing between the lesser of two evils that lie on both ends of the extremes, with reality somewhere in the middle and no candidate to voice it.
Maybe I'm making to much of all this. After all, we do have Robert Dionisio, Zoltan Istvan and Chris Keniston running this year. Not familiar with them? Well you could vote for Rhett Smith, Roger E. Nicholas, or Verone A. Thomas. Still not ringing a exit poll bell? What about Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifva Curry? I hear she could do a good job and get our country back on track. In case you may be at a loss, my fellow Observers, the above candidates represent the Independent, Transhumanist, Veterans, Libertarian, Unity, Modern Whig and Green parties, respectively. Never heard of them? I'm not surprised. That's exactly how the elephants and the donkeys want us to be... ignorant. They want us to stay uninformed about other choices we may have in alternative candidates and spend millions to keep these parties out of the mainstream political arena. They diminish their credibility and downplay their importance in our democracy and we blindly follow their lead because it's just the way it's always been.
Although the Independents have made a little headway in congress and at the state level, most of the time the Independent elect is a turncoat that lost their party's endorsement and instead of losing gracefully, abandon it over political sour grapes. Here in Connecticut we call that "Pulling a Lieberman". I thought there was a fair to midland chance for the Reform party back in the early 90's. They had a good support base and had attracted fresh and energetic candidates that made a stand for change amongst the two party status quo. That's what I and many others thought, but situations such as exclusion from the debates by rules governed and changed between 1992 and 1996 (oddly coincident at the height of they party's popularity... weird...) by the Commission on Presidential Debates started the party's death knell. Another problem they faced is as the party was trying to find itself during it's infancy, it fought within itself for a structured platform and leadership as well as being accused of corruption by the two major parties.
The problem is that despite numerous attempts, there is no middle of the road party for those that feel that they have been let down in the choices given to them by the GOP and the Democrats. You could argue the point that you have to try to create change within a party's guidelines, but the truth is that the two party system has failed us as much as the electoral college has. They have become two enormous, practically unstoppable government machines that are dragging us down the same left or right track every four years for over a century. We are chained to it and no matter how much these parties tell us that our vote counts, we have been shown repeatedly that it counts for nothing but further feeding their power over us.
In order to effect any kind of change, we need a credible third party to rival the established two, otherwise, even when we have what appears to be numerous choices we essentially have none when limited to just two agendas. Let's take a look at the choices we have in this go around, shall we? Maybe as we look at them together, my loyal reader, we will both come to he realize that the only loser in this years election will be the American people.
Hilary Clinton: Well she's not her husband and that's probably a good thing, although it would be interesting to know her stand on cigars... now that I think about it... maybe not. The only thing she has going for her is that she's already had a certain amount of "White House" experience. Between Bill's presidency and her stint as Secretary of the State she must have picked up a few presidential tricks along the way. Outside of that, I really don't see her as being a candidate that can connect with the people. Not because of her take on the issues, the policies that she wants to create or her views on our economy, but with Whitewater and an email scandal in her public service rear view, along with her speaking salary that has netted her over 25 million since 2014, the American people don't trust her. As well as not believing that she has any common ground to share with the working class. You can look at all the demographics that you want. If your not part of one, you have no idea what that life is actually like. Finally, I feel that those who would vote for her or have a problem with her because she's a woman have a small minded scope on what they should be looking for in a candidate. It should have no bearing. If it does, you should stay out of the voting booth. All in all I simply feel that she is not the person for the job.
Bernie Sanders: He may be hawking "A Future to Believe In" but at 75, how much future does he realistically have left? All jokes aside, I personally like Sanders and agree with a lot of his "not for profit" philosophies. I believe we need national health care. I believe a continuing education should be made available publicly as our elementary and high schools are. I believe we should pay menial and clerical workers a higher minimum wage and we should hold Wall Street accountable for their actions. Now before you label me and put me so far out in left field that you can't see me in the bleachers.... I wrote I agree with his philosophies about the fore mentioned.... not the reality of trying to achieve it. They are simply not possible in a capitalistic society. We may practice our politics with a certain amount of democracy, but we live our day to day lives with money. In an ideal world where we all work together toward advancing humanity and bettering mankind, Senator Sanders would be the perfect person for the job. But.... since we haven't made first contact with the Vulcans yet... I think he may be a few centuries ahead of his time. To single out one of Senator Sanders positions on how he would pay for some of these programs by making Wall Street foot the bill due to the bail out in 2008, I have to point out to the gentleman form Vermont that one of the primary reasons we bailed them out was to keep the unemployment rate of 10.5% we suffered for almost a decade from being 20.5%, if not higher. That's capitalism... that's our flaw in how our economy works. If you take money from those that have it... they take jobs from those that don't. It's economics 101.. if you don't understand that.... you can't be president.
John Kasich: At the first debate a few months ago, Kasich actually stood out to me as a possible candidate that I could root for... until I researched his record in politics. Many things I uncovered made me question if I wanted this guy at the controls and the answer kept coming up... No! Claiming to be a strong advocate for woman's health, he just can't seem to explain away his current budget decisions on the matter. Most recently, as governor of Ohio he plans to sign state legislation named the Ohio Bill into law. This new law will prohibit state and certain federal funds, earmarked for Planned Parenthood and other facilities that perform "nontherapeutic abortions". It also cuts funding to other medical facilities that work with these organizations. This isn't the first time as governor he has pushed his anti-abortion views to the extreme. In 2013 he signed in a budget that took 1.4 million away in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Most of the money lost was intended for education and birth control programs outside of their "abortion services". The budget also took public funds away from rape crisis centers if they referred impregnated victims to abortion providers. It also prevented public hospitals from treating medical emergency cases from abortion clinics. There is no denying that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of the actions of two people, but Kasich apparently believes that the end result blame should rest on the woman's shoulders alone. He may claim to be "For Us" but he certainly isn't for woman's health, at least not his definition of it.
Ted Cruz: He may think that he is courageous, conservative and consistent but he's certainly not trusted as his campaign slogan implies. He supported Kim Davis in her gay bashing tirade last year, ergo, he opposes gay marriage. He as just as immigrant crazy as the rest of his party. He denies that climate change is a reality and will cut funding to regulate EPA laws that will attempt to reduce it. He orchestrated a 17 day government shutdown in an attempt to block funding to the Affordable Care Act and vows to repeal every word of the current health care law if elected. He has been accused of campaign fraud in which he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions that he called a "paperwork error". His own party hates his practices as he challenges party leaders, publicly calling them liars. I have to admit that I like that about him, but alienating yourself to your party will assuredly make you a lame duck at your inauguration. Speaking of ducks, I just can't bring myself to vote for a guy that dresses up like Schwarzenegger in Commando to go out by a lake to shoot water fowl with another prejudiced, bigoted, wife beating, homophobic, self righteous, religious fanatic that got lucky selling bird calls that says Cruz is "his guy".
For the sake of argument, there are a couple of other candidates that are still technically in the race, but probably won't be for long. To make this article as short as possible, I'll briefly mention these potentials and what I Observe as their main problem that will undo their campaign.
Marco Rubio: He has to stop flip flopping on the issues he's already voted on, especially immigration. I guess he's afraid the other GOP candidates will try to deport him.
Ben Carson: He has to stop getting the answers to his life's questions from God and posing for portraits with his son.
Jeb Bush: His last name is Bush.
Finally, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who this past Tuesday seemed more concerned to thank his third cousin, once removed by the marriage of his adopted uncle, on his father's side and the signs his supporters were waving in the audience than he was in making a coherent acceptance speech after winning the New Hampshire primary. As much as I hate giving this billion dollar bozo any more press (for as much as he will get from my article) his primary win a few days ago and his projected wins across the primary trail are disturbing to me. I fully agree that politics have been entrenched by career politicians to the point that an outsider could very well offer us a fresh approach to help aid what's wrong with our country, but we have to look harder at the dangers inherit in the policies suggested by someone who is seeking the office who may be using them as a platform for a personal agenda.
Trumps campaign suggests that he intends to "Make America Great Again". For just who exactly? If elected, America surely won't be so great for immigrants especially with a mass deportation attempt and that 80' wall and moat surrounding it, complete with alligators keeping them from getting back in. Didn't we just tear one of those down a few years ago in Berlin? Oh well, not to worry. It won't be so hot for Muslims either with his ban on them from entering our country, no matter who they are. Maybe he's forgotten that this country doesn't discriminate against individuals because of their religion or lack there of. That's his biggest problem. His retroactive way of thinking to return us to a time that he believes was "great". Not focused on family values as a lot of recent politicians have been. He's set his sights on the reversion of our prejudicial tendencies. The way they were in the mid 20th century. His candidacy has attracted those that feel that way and have had to hide heir true agenda because it hasn't been widely accepted in over four decades. It has brought out the bigots hiding in the shadows because he's saying publicly what they want to say but were afraid of social exile. It's given them hope that their disgusting ideals will become common place once again. It has given the nod for those to bring out and dust off their white sheets and hoods and wear them proudly. It has made it acceptable in certain fashion to hate again... in a more progressive, modern way, of course. It has given approval to yet again berate and belittle women, poke fun at the disabled, denounce gay couples and judge and persecute people simply over the religion they practice or the color of their skin and it has brought out the uglier side of our country in the people that follow him. It is a loaded gun, pointed at the head of the progress we have made as a society in the last 65 years and pushing the lever in the voting machine for him is the equivalent of pulling the trigger. That is his vision. That is his philosophy. That is his dream for America...... What's so "great" about that? Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I have to find a quarter.
View my other articles, posts and Like Strictly an Observer on Facebook
View all strictly an Observer articles on Tumblr
Strictly an Observer is on Pinterest
Strictly an Observer is on My Space
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google+
Contact Strictly an Observer. I welcome all correspondence.
