So what about the 2012 Presidential election?

I'm already getting tired of the 2012 Presidential election campaign, and it's hardly begun yet! I wish we could persuade those involved to put a sock in it until the New Year, but I guess that's a pipe-dream. I thought I'd share my take on the candidates so far, and hope for a revolution to change the tone.

The Democratic candidacy is virtually certain to go to President Obama, as the incumbent. That's a pity, because he's either an incompetent nincompoop, or an extraordinarily devious and dangerous hard-core Socialist who's out to destroy America as we know it. His record in office has been unremittingly destructive to the core values that have sustained this country for so many years. If he gets a second term, I seriously question whether we'll be able to undo all the damage he's done. Perhaps the best hope is to get a House and Senate with opposition majorities sufficient to pass budgets (and de-fund programs, where necessary) over his veto. Still, it'd be nice if someone (Hillary?) would choose to run against him for the Democratic Party nomination. I think he's alienated enough of his own party to give a good in-house opponent a fighting chance.

As for the Republican candidates, it's a case of same old, same old. I'm sick of the lot of them.

Mitch Daniels: He's responsible for the mess caused by the Indiana Supreme Court. Given his complicity in that, I can't and won't support him unless he moves very hard and very fast to undo the damage - and there's no sign that he will. As Karl Denninger states: "Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States." (Bold italic print is Mr. Denninger's emphasis.)

Mitt Romney: Oh, puh-leeze! After the catastrophic consequences of Romneycare in Massachusetts, and his public call for more of the same on a national scale, fuhgettabahtit! I'd rather vote for Obama. At least the Obamanation doesn't try to obfuscate about his intentions!

Newt Gingrich: He can't be trusted. He's a serial adulterer; he had the gall to cut an advertisement with Nancy Pelosi supporting the global warming scam; he's attacking and undermining elements of his own party in an attempt to maneuver for political advantage; and he's far too ambiguous and ambivalent about Obamacare. He now says that we should "Judge me by what I can do for America now, rather than only by my mistakes in the past". Unfortunately, the only yardstick we have by which to judge him (or anyone else) is precisely what they've done in the past; and, for me, his past alone (let alone his present conduct) is enough to disqualify Mr. Gingrich from consideration.

Ron Paul: He's been a courageous voice for libertarian ideas for many years. However, many of his positions are too extreme for me to support him. His past dalliance with racism troubles me, despite his and others' denials, which are suspect; and he says he would not have authorized the strike against Osama bin Laden, choosing rather to negotiate with Pakistan to have him arrested - a pipe-dream of the first water. I simply can't regard him as a realistic candidate for an office so demanding as the Presidency.

Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have announced that they won't be running for the Republican party's Presidential nomination. Good riddance to both of them. Mr. Huckabee's far too fundamentalist for me to trust him in an office where he has to lead Americans of every, all and no religious persuasion; and Donald Trump has defined himself as a wheeler-dealing egotistical blowhard. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is considering a run at the Republican nomination. I don't know enough about him (yet) to have developed strong views for or against his suitability for the office of President. There are persistent rumors that Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City might mount an independent run for the Presidency, but he's denied them. I hope he means it. He may be just what New Yorkers want, but the rest of the country is a very different proposition. His seeming distrust of private citizens, attempting to dictate by legislation and/or regulation how they should live rather than trust them with individual liberty and responsibility, makes him (in my opinion) an unfit person to be at the head of an Executive Branch that must (at least in theory) observe the liberties guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

So who might I support, you ask? I will support any candidate, of any party, who has the courage and strength of will to seek to destroy 'politics as usual' in his or her campaign. Give me a candidate who will not appoint political 'insiders' or 'experts' as advisers, but will draw his or her entourage from sources outside the Beltway. Give me a candidate who will actively seek to restrict the role of government to the powers authorized for it in the Constitution. Give me a candidate who will dismantle the 'Big Brother' elements of government and return power to the people. Give me a candidate who will denounce - and undo - the creeping totalitarianism of the 'nanny state', which seeks to reinterpret and restrict (if not overturn) civil liberties, and make us into subjects rather than citizens.

Who might fit that description? I can think of only two potential candidates on the Republican side at the moment. One is Michele Bachmann; the other is Sarah Palin. Both are controversial (particularly Ms. Palin), but I think neither is likely to be intimidated by the 'establishment'. Of course, that same 'establishment' will do its damnedest to make sure neither of them is nominated . . . but that's precisely the problem. The establishment wants someone who will deliver 'politics as usual'. I want to destroy 'politics as usual'.

(There are those who claim that both Ms. Bachmann and Ms. Palin are too 'extreme', or too 'inexperienced', or too 'wayward' to be viable candidates. To them I say only this: how can either of them possibly be worse than the 'politics-as-usual' candidates the parties want to offer us? I don't see how they can be worse, and they may well be better - so why not vote for them? What have you got to lose?)

Is there an equally disruptive candidate on the Democratic side? I truly hope so. I trust neither the Democratic or Republican parties as institutions. I won't vote for the party; I'll vote for the individual. Show me an individual who comes closest to the qualities I'm looking for, and I'll vote for them, irrespective of their party.

Peter