How to assure that we elect a good president


We political bloggers like to write about the numerous complaints that are popular during a presidential election. They range from lamenting the poor choices we have for president to why the campaigns last so long. They are many and they are persistent; every year the same old complaints are heard again as if they were new, but they don’t ever seem to get resolved.

We love to criticize the political parties and the exorbitant amount of money it takes to conduct a national campaign. We all agree that politicians lie with abandon and seldom answer any question definitively. We’re concerned with voter fraud and especially don’t want illegal aliens voting. Some are satisfied with the Electoral College method of electing a president while others would prefer a popular vote tally. The list could go on and on.

But when you boil it all down, the major problem with our presidential elections can be found at the source; the voters themselves.

Results from a Rasmussen survey of likely voters in 2014 found that respondents thought that a large majority (83%) of American voters were woefully uninformed. You’ll note that the 83% figure must include many of those uninformed voters. I wonder, were they qualified (informed enough) to even answer the question intelligently?

In that same survey, 72% of the respondents thought that most members of Congress should not be reelected. That’s a pretty standard theme; the approval rating for Congress in Feb., 2016 was 11%. That’s pretty dismal. But it does beg the questions: who put them there and who keeps them there? There’s only one answer: the voters.

There are currently 16 members who have been in Congress for over 30 years. Why weren’t they put out to pasture before? If we’re so displeased with Congress, shouldn’t we start by replacing the members with the most influence and control – the ones most responsible for our displeasure?

The “newbies” in Congress have little to no power and, for the most part, do as they’re told. The committee chairpersons and ranking members control the legislation and thus, the laws. Why won’t the voters vote them out?

I have a simple answer to that question: the voters are dumb-asses.

Most voters, even the uninformed ones, believe that our right to vote is sacred and would raise holy hell if someone tried to take it away. But we have two problems with our presidential elections, 1) not everyone votes (in 2012, only about 57.5% of eligible voters cast ballots), and 2) the majority of the voters who did vote were uninformed about the candidate’s qualifications (or lack thereof) and voted solely on name recognition or party affiliation.

OK, now that we’ve established that the leader of the free world, on whose shoulders rest the well-being of 323,616,776 (U.S. Census population clock) residents of the United States, is chosen (in great measure) by voters who are woefully uninformed about him or her.

Is it too much to ask that voters exhibit at least the same seriousness about choosing our country’s CEO and Commander-in-Chief, as they do in deciding where to have lunch today?

For us political junkies, it boggles the mind that millions of voters simply don’t care enough to investigate which candidate is most likely to represent their interests. It’d be easy to say that they’ll get what they deserve, but the problem is we all end up getting what they deserve – and that’s just not right.

So, what’s the solution?

It’s simple. Just let us, the purveyors of truth and wisdom at Pesky Truth, choose our next president.

We have Kathy, CW, The Crawfish, curtmilr, AfterShock, tannngl, and I to rely on.

Could we do any worse? Worse than Barack Obama?

I think not. And how about the two major party candidates that we’ll have to choose from this year, are they appreciably better?

Just think that if WE had selected a president in 2008 and again in 2012, the nation would not have been subjected to unconstitutional governance, we would not have had illegal immigration running amok, our national debt wouldn’t be $19 TRILLION dollars today, Hillary wouldn’t have been Secretary of State, Benghazi wouldn’t have happened – and the list can go on for pages.

We, your simple political servants, take choosing our president VERY seriously. We dig, we research, we investigate, and then we “munge” (H/T to Mrs. AL), until we coalesce around the individual who would properly manage our country’s affairs, economically and internationally. A person who will tell the truth to the American public (fancy that!), giving us accurate assessments of the pros and cons of issues and the reasons for making decisions. We’d KNOW why things are as they are.

So, to sum it up, just write in “Pesky Truth” as your choice for president and relax, confident in the knowledge that we couldn’t possibly do any worse than our disinterested citizen population has done in the last few elections – and is on course to do as poorly once again – in November.


Categories: Political


20 replies

  1. Sounds good. While you’re at it see if everyone will give us their money too. 🙂


  2. Sit down. You might be in for a shock. I’ve been realizing the ignorance of voters in the US now for about 2 decades. I’ve done a lot of thinking on this. “Munging”. (I miss you, Mrs. Al) Here’s what I’ve come to believe with some trepidation: We should go back to the original voting laws. You only vote if you own property. And (are you sitting down?) women shouldn’t vote.

    I’ve never put that in writing.
    Voting is too important for people who don’t have a reason to care about who runs our country.
    Ok, incoming…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Tannngl,

      I FULLY agree about limiting the vote to real property owners, though I would include property owning females. (I’m not sexist, you see! LOL!). I would also eliminate property owners who are somehow on the dole. If you are reliant on government sustenance, you can’t vote for anyone who can sustain or expand it in the Congress.

      Full repeal of the 16th & 17th Amendments.

      Further, I would institute term limits of two terms for any federal office, i.e. 4 years in the House, 8 years as President, and 12 years in the Senate. Federal judges would be appointed for 10 years at any level.

      All Cabinet positions and Departments must conform with Art.1, Sec.8 enumeration of powers or be abolished entirely.

      All regulations by the conforming bureaucracy must be specifically approved by Congress, be in accord with Art.1, Sec.8 enumerated powers, and be subject to a 10 year Sunset provision.

      Lastly, all laws passed would be fully applicable to all federal office holders, bureaucrats, and judges, and violation of same would result in felonious imprisonment and barring for life from further governmental employment or office. There would be zero retirement pensions, insurance, etc., other than for survivors of assassination while in office for a 10 year period (50% of salary).

      Other than that, I wouldn’t touch a thing! We’re good! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      • Uh…..then Crawfish and Mrs. Crawfish could not vote, as we are on military retirements and VA disability!

        Property owners, military, and veterans (somehow include foreign service as well), along with their spouses. Many military are not property owners.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with most of curtmilr’s proposals. I’d have to have clarification on “reliant on government sustenance” as not including social security and I’d have to allow military and vets to vote and I don’t agree with the absence of retirement, insurance, etc. for government workers. It’s far too extravagant now, but retirement and insurance should parallel the civilian sector.


      • Curt, my reasoning for women not voting is our ease of being swayed by men candidates. We have trouble seeing through the coifed, manicured, images to the underbelly of the thing. Men seem to see the underbelly better than women. I see it in the polls on women’s voting decisions compared to men’s. I’ve faced the issue: usually we women can’t see the character of the reality TV candidates. Sad but true.


    • I agree with your “voting is too important” statement, and with the property owners (along with a few others) being the primary voters, but I don’t see any reason to exclude women property owners from voting. In general, you and I have the same primary reasoning – you’ve got to have some “skln” in the game.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. When the choices are an uncharged felon and a self-proclaimed gozillionaire, there’s no doubt we could do a better job, and there’s less likelihood that these two would even be in the race, had we been in charge.

    Crawfish, you’d be my first choice…right after Ted Cruz. 🙂


  4. Vote Crawfish!
    Then grab your popcorn and watch the fur fly!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: