Campaign Reform

If there's anything about current campaigns that needs reforming, it's this ridiculous schedule that we've begun since the last election. If we keep it up at this rate, the election is going to be held before the primaries.

What I want to know is, who thought that this was a good idea...and why?

The current Presidential campaign started, literally, the day after the last election in November '06. Why?

The campaigns used to start about 18 months before the election, giving us 6 months to nominate a candidate in the primaries and a full year for them to get their message out to the "undecided" voter...who didn't pay attention to the campaign until about the last month of the campaign anyway!

Is this really necessary? In today's political climate especially, most people know who they're going to end up voting for. If the rest of them need 2 years to decide whether they're for or against higher taxes, abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues that separate the parties, maybe they shouldn't be voting. If they're that completely ignorant of the issues, do we really want them to be deciding who's running this country?

There was a minor brouhaha last week because somebody suggested that we have a very basic test regarding the issues before letting somebody vote. Many people were horrified at the thought. I, for one, would be all for it. Especially when you consider the Demobratz' tactics of scaring people into voting for them.

Demobratz never have any ideas...they don't need to have any. They just tell the "undecided voters" that Republicans want to take everything away from them and kill them and their families. And the genius in the "undecided voter" category, who pays absolutely no attention to what's going on in this country other than the "American Idol" standings, and who pays no attention to politics until the last month of the campaign, when Demobratz turn into Conservatives, believe every word of what they hear in the MSM and vote Democrat.

I've never seen a poll on the subject, but I'd bet that the vast majority of "Independent" voters vote for Demobratz. You have one part of that category who are too embarrassed to associate themselves with the "liberal" label of the Democrat Party, and the rest are people whose TV's don't often stray from the broadcast TV (i.e. MSM) channels and who believe what they read in the newspapers.

The only thing that a two-year campaign does is to give the Demobratz more time to spin their lies into something that your typical uninformed "Independent" voter will find palatable. It just gives them more time to find a way to demonize the Conservative message (such as it is) being put out by the Republican Party.

The first rule of propaganda is that endless repetition will make your point into the truth in the eyes of those who don't know what's really going on. This endless campaign works right into the hands of the spin-monsters of the Left who need to convince those who don't know better into believing that Socialism will solve all of their problems.

We need to reform the campaign process. I have no hope of eliminating the uninformed from the process. That would just be too easy for the Demobratz to get those very same uninformed voters up-in-arms. "You have a right to be ignorant and vote for us! In fact, we count on it!" If we were to eliminate the uninformed voter, the Demobratz could never win again, and they know it.

However, we need to convince some courageous person in Congress to bring a bill that will limit campaigning to a 1-year period. That would give the candidates a few months to get their message out to the primary voters, and 9 months for them to state their positions to the general public.

If the candidates can't get their message out in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be running.

And, if the "undecideds" can't figure out what they stand for in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be voting.