Strange bedfellows and more...

There is a saying (author unknown) that politicians make strange bedfellows. I believe the origin of this has to do with the limited hostelry, funds and need for politicians back in Revolutionary War days, who traveled together, to bed down together--not only in the same room, but often in the same bed. However, this little historical background fact does not explain how today's politicians (candidates running for the same office), who spend volumes of money, time and energy bad-mouthing their opponents at every turn by telling all of us why we must vote for them and why it is urgent that we do not support the other candidates unless we want to bring about the world's worst calamity, can acquiesce so easily and become the staunchest of supporters if and when they lose the nomination. All of a surgeon (yes, I know I wrote "surgeon" not "sudden"), the horrible, terrible, heinously bad person who was running against them is now the individual behind whom all "losers" (yep, that's what they are technically and otherwise) stand and wholeheartedly endorse, spending their efforts to get that former enemy elected.

In my world we call this hypocrisy. We call it two-faced. We call it phony. We call it insincere. We call it bizarre. Call me crazy, but doesn't it bother anyone that politicians can so quickly change from "he/she is a disaster in the making" to "it's all about getting someone (anyone) from my party elected, even if I think the nominee is a Philistine, a Cretan, a character from the comic books who doesn't or can't save the day"? This attitude bothers me. A lot. If the losing candidates didn't think that the primary/delegate "winner" was the best person for the job when they decided they needed to throw their hats into the ring, then what has changed over the months to bring any of them to the conclusion that this individual deserves to win? We have heard some pretty ugly comments and criticisms made by competitors about other candidates abilities to think, to formulate appropriate policy, to know how or whether a policy is even viable, to deal with major, important issues at home and abroad, how often they have flip-flopped on issues, and how they plan to keep the promises they have made. We seem to have a collective amnesia. How convenient for the two major political parties, but how devastatingly inconvenient for the public, the constituents. How can we trust endorsements by individuals who are willing to trade their once insistent/uncompromising view of how the country needs to be run at all levels and by them, for a party victory at all cost? Candidates, who have lost, want to stay in good standing with their party--hopes for a future run at the presidency abound, or a vice-presidency selection awaits, or whatever. Isn't there anyone out there who lost, but still feels strongly about what he or she said during the primary campaign period and who can't compromise his or her standards just to be popular or acceptable by a political party system that seems to be feeding on itself? Someone will be elected president in November and take office in January. Delegates and Super Delegates will cast their votes at summer conventions. People will wave signs and flags and toss confetti and act excited about the prospect of their party's candidate assuming the highest office in the land. Approximately 1/4 of the adult population of this country will fill out a ballot, pull a lever, use a touch-screen to vote. Maybe this is the percentage that isn't bothered by the process we currently use to choose our candidates. Maybe the remainder of the population is numbed by the process, doesn't care, thinks it doesn't matter anyway, or is protesting the whole event by not voting. This voter apathy is a huge price to pay for a system in need of review and repair, as is a "victory at all cost" where politicians sell themselves and their platforms to remain at the table.

I have a friend who opined that we should have one day for all states to hold their primaries, so everyone can vote for all the candidates, for all the individuals who feel that have a vision for America. This would eliminate a lot of time and money (an political ads) that could be better spent solving the problems we face as a nation--poverty, immigration, the undereducated, lack of health care, unemployment, etc. It would also level the playing field. Good, solid candidates don't always "make it" to the latter part of the primary process because they lack funds, local party endorsements, or a mud-slinging campaign by other candidates or the media sullies their reputation even when there is no truth to what is said. I like my friend's idea. I think it makes sense. Now that's a concept--a political process that makes sense, puts all contenders on equal footing, and limits the ad-nauseum media analysis and exposure. I'll vote for that! Meanwhile, I keep my TV remote handy and am becoming adept at clicking away from any and all politicals advertisements, "intellectual" dissections of campaigns or candidates, or the like. By the time November rolls around, I should be down to a nanosecond clickability. And Thanksgiving comes shortly after the national election. Carve the bird. Pass the potatoes and stuffing and offer gratitude for four more years before it all starts again....