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.

The 2016 Speculated Packed Republican Field versus the Speculated Democrat Field of One (?)

Senators Bernie Sanders, VT, and Rand Paul (KY)Presidential Hopefuls - image from Politico

So much is now being bandied about regarding the individuals who are “front-runners”, denigrating and complementary, depending upon which media one prefers it becomes a bit tired. What is somewhat as musing is that this is a pattern that occurs every four years, yet, somehow those pontificators (including this one) continue to spout the good and the bad of potential candidates for two respective parties. There are those who accuse the party establishments of colluding against the populace (sounds about right), and those who are so wedded to an ideology (either right or left) that should their favorite candidate not jump into the race, they need therapy. It is nothing new really, but more of the same and this is where that same old jargon takes a twist and gives one side of the “two-party” system a little bit more depth.

An opinion piece in Bloomberg states the obvious - Winnowing The Republican Presidential Field - which goes into a place few dare to tread – some will drop out, some will show up late to the dance, and eventually there will be a winner. As of this moment the polls are indicating that Hillary Clinton, the lone Democrat who has yet to announce, leads the field, but recall 2006, when there was no mention of one “up and coming” Democrat from the State of Illinois, who most of the nation never heard of – Barack Obama. Therefore, one can bet, Democrats being Democrats, that the nominee will not be Hillary Clinton, chances are better than average that a little knows Senator from MA, who hails from Oklahoma, will be in the limelight as this year wears on.

On the Republican side, much to the dismay of many, the front runners, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and another Bush, lead the field, with Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and several others vying for spots, and that depends on the pollster. Straw polls being what they are should be taken with a grain of salt – yet, they offer insight into who the political activists favor. Having a crowded field, in the end, offers choices, which is a bonus to those who are in the political cheap seats, and normally have little to no say as to the nominee, given the Party’s ability to choose long before the positioning begins. However, times are changing, and there is always hope for a little rebellion and resurrection taking place in both parties, going even so far as to form a third party – which for some would be the Holy Grail of political gains.

The aforementioned terrifies the powerbrokers as one would imagine, as that’s hard cash splitting three ways rather than two – which is why the Tea Party is so frowned upon and vilified.

This is the time of the season when those of us in the trenches choose favorites (plural) as one should know, the field will narrow, and like any gambling, with the stakes much higher, betting everything on one horse is not the best way to play –unless of course, things stay the course and one knows the Party Elite. However, if there is a crack in the wall of power that is DC, then all bets are off. Confusing to say the least, but, as it should be.

Current favorites: Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders. If one were to pick two, one for each ticket, they represent politics the way it should be in this nation. Paul, who is a Libertarian Republican (Jeffersonian) is representative of the middle and the left with some right thrown in for good measure, he calls them like he sees them, and that doesn’t sit well with lapdogs like Rep. Peter King. Sanders, for being the Independent Democrat who suggests he really is a Communist – which, frankly, someone not hiding their true political bent behinds a blanket Party Logo, is refreshing!