The Perfect Presidential Candidate (or any Federal, State or Local Candidate)

Is there truly a perfect candidate for any office, no matter how low or how high? No, in truth, there is not, and the reason has less to do with any given candidate than it does with the massive political parties, the money brokers, and the “fringe” groups who hold every candidate to the fire if they dare to step an inch towards getting something accomplished that doesn’t align with their belief structure.

The groups involved in the above, some considered mainstream, some considered fringe (although they should all be under on large umbrella), are the Progressive Left, the DNC, the RNC and those who adhere to the middle of the road, there is the Tea Party, and there are the religious (which covers several categories) – All of these unforgiving and holding to a set of principles that is neither right or wrong, yet somehow muddies the water consistently for very good candidates who may somehow not meet a small criteria.

As we move towards yet another contentious general election, one will find they will either have a candidate that is flawed according to the set of specifics, and neither vote, or perhaps vote in spite for the opposition. Then there are the pragmatists, who each election hopes against hope that they will have a candidate they can stand, rather than a candidate that is the lesser of two evils.

Categories that fall (or may fall) under an undesirable individual for whom to cast a vote (according to the fringe)

A Catholic A Mormon (see 2012 and millions of evangelicals) A woman (not, sadly, in my lifetime) A candidate, male or female, that has not given enough money or support to NARAL A candidate, male or female, that has given to and supports pro-life groups A candidate who votes against the particular dogma of the “group”, while in office, and that group pulls support, preferring to lose on overall ideology rather than gain on purity (Scott Brown – Tea Party).

Voter suppression, dead voting, bussing in “voters” from other states, and a myriad of other charges, both real and imagined, are often used as an excuse, or the fact that the candidate does not excite, or did something long buried in the past, that makes them – un-pure.

There are those groups with money or clout or both that will throw both at a particular candidate who suits their needs and future gains – unions, PAC’s, those that have the wherewithal – Koch brothers, Hollywood, aligned against, a candidate or candidates who may not be one hundred percent pure to the electorate, but who would, in anywise, be a better choice, than the conglomerate that the party hierarchies and the money that follows, make for them.

The solution to this entire schematic would be to score the candidate, not necessarily on purity, but perhaps on a scale of purity – 70% say, in order to finally bring some sensibility to the process.

The national parties may have their “chosen” one, (or perhaps two), and those are the individuals, who for whatever reason, are called to the vocation, yet, may side more often with the party, than with those who cast votes – it would be a miracle, indeed, if one were able to cast a vote for the individual who was also called to the vocation, but was a choice of the people.

Look carefully at these candidates, that are now standing before – not as Republican’s or as Democrats, or as Tea Party, Libertarian, Progressive, or pick a flavor, but as the individual who’s story is most compelling, who is wedded to a philosophy and who may have strayed from that philosophy either through growth or pragmatism. They might also wish to be in the good graces of the respective party, for one reason or the other, but overall, they may mostly align with one’s belief structure. One will not go to hell for voting for a Mormon, a Methodist, or Catholic, or what-have-you, their Church will never rule the nation. In a perfect world, that would be exactly how individuals would cast their votes, and it would, in this opinion produce far better results.