Straight-ticket voting makes no sense

I’ve never understood straight-ticket voting. Folks who practice that form of “democracy” are saying that followers of one party have all the right answers. No party has all the right answers.

The Tea Party, for all its pomp and circumstance and pompous stances, is just a Republican offshoot, pushing a right-of-Atilla-the Hun philosophy with little regard for folks that really need help. Members of that party are for reduction of the national debt (with which I wholeheartly agree) and reducing the size of the federal government (again, I believe that is the right idea).

The Tea Party and those Republicans who lean so far right as to have their shoulder touching the ground are vehemently against abortion for any reason; we part ways on that issue. I believe that if you do not have lady parts, your opinion is not worth a “warm bucket of piss,” to quote John Nance Garner, the 32^nd vice president of the United States. (For years, the quote was changed to “warm bucket of spit,” but Garner disavowed that quote, saying, “I meant what I said.”)

As with any planks of a political platform, the means to the end may differ, but that’s where the art of compromise is supposed to come into play. The Tea Party, and most of the GOPers and Democrats, have forgotten the intricacies of that lost art. Compromise is what is supposed to grease the massive wheels of government so that the needs of the people are served.

After the last presidential election, where Obama handed the Republican Party their collective asses in their hats, the party has done a you-turn-back square dance move on a couple of major issues, the biggest to date including immigration. Republicans who, before the election, were against any compromise on immigration reform, are now four-square for some sort of immigration reform; without a bigger Hispanic voting percentage in future elections, GOP chances for winning the White House are somewhere between none and bahahahahahaha!

The far-right-wingers are proud of the fact that they are holding out due to principle, but in this case, principle on certain issues guarantees victory only at the regional level. Potential national office holders – if they espouse the nutty language and actions of several GOPers in the last elections – will win nothing but big headlines for their crazy antics and statements.

It is a political fact that in order to be considered a viable candidate, presidential contenders must cater to the demands of women, minority groups and young voters. Mitt Romney’s campaign strategists missed the important demographic shifts in 2012 and ….

The GOP hopes in 2016 are tied to Florida’s Jeb Bush, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Florida’s Mario Rubio. Rubio and Jindal are not yet ready for prime time; a battle between Christie and Bush, if it really develops, will be a reality show worth watching.

The Republicans are actually in better shape for an interesting race than the Democrats. Right now the Democrat field is … Hillary Clinton. If she decides to run, other contenders will be fighting a climb-the-mountain-without-pitons struggle.

But, regardless of her present popularity, she is vulnerable. So many years in the public eye has left a lot of territory for an opponent to exploit. And, she does not have the warm-and-fuzzy personality and charisma of her husband.

Three-and-a-half years out, 2016 is shaping up to be a donnybrook of an election year, like 2012, but with some interesting intrigue in play and fewer nut-jobs in the mix.