Get ready for another disappointing election

Yet again, we’re looking at another presidential race where the mainstream media will work its best at following less-than-stellar candidates on the right, none worthy of the position in such a time of crisis and a great need for legitimate, major change to our domestic and foreign policies.

On the left, Obama’s administration was a failure. Just three years into what can easily turn into an eight-year run, the national debt is nearing $15 trillion. Obama failed to lead the government into slowing the bleeding from the Bush administration. If he doesn’t get re-elected, he’ll be remembered for the lengthy, over-compromised health care bill, the trillions in bailouts (Forbes.com reports up to $16 trillion since 2008) and not ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

So what about the GOP? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Mitt Romney? Michelle Bachman? Yeah, sure, we just need another run-of-the-mill mainstream Republican to keep that deficit soaring for four years.

(Or we could use a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Wait, Gary who?)

At this rate, by this time next year, we’ll be making our “lesser-of-the-two-evils” vote or a throwaway vote to a candidate that would actually ignite some change. Unfortunately, the latter choice will be ignored by the mainstream media that he won’t have any shot to win.

But does this have to be the case? Do these elections need to be the choices between the incumbent and the winner of a year-long tournament (debates) loosely related to the issues?

The Republican debates thus far are merely a show packed with hopefuls who bicker and trash each other, and the winner of the end-of-debate poll concludes “you argue better” rather than “you have the potential to solve the nation’s problems.”

So far, the four main contenders offer little in substantial change our country needs. Cain’s platform 9-9-9 tax model won’t solve the nation’s debt. Rick Perry’s immigration stance isn’t going to solve the nation’s debt. Et cetera.

And unfortunately, the widely ignored and unheard of candidates at least have plans to make great changes. And if either made it to be the big stage, perhaps they could lead the government into following through.

For years, Texas congressman Ron Paul opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and wants to withdraw immediately (actually, he wanted to do that years ago). He wants to cut spending in many avenues, dropping five cabinets and ending foreign aid. His stance on social issues aren’t great – but he sets his values aside and decides it’s up to the states for issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana. Unfortunately, he isn’t environmentally conscious. Not a perfect choice, but the better choice than the hopefuls with the headlines.

And then there’s Gary Johnson. Another candidate that wants to end the wars and lessen America’s involvement throughout the world. He wants to stop the bailouts. He believes that civil liberties need to be restored. Johnson wants the government to stay out of regulating the Internet.

Not all the choices are bad, but the ones most recognizable on TV are not the answers. Unfortunately, odds are against Paul or Johnson to get the recognition they deserve and we’ll be facing another lackluster election and an even worse four years to follow.

Print PDF