Instead, performance depends on who is less of a failure than the next person.
Success is not an option.
There is little doubt among those with IQs above that of an average plant that Barack Obama is a monumental failure as President of the United States. American voters took a chance on an untried and untested freshman Senator and lost.
But the option to Obama in the first election was an aging Senator with a certified flake as his vice Presidential candidate and the choice in the second election was an ex-governor with a questionable record who ran an Olympic games that raised even more questions. His choice for vice president: A rabid right-wing wacko from Wisconsin.
Americans seldom face a choice in elections. They are given a collection of failures who offer little or no option for a voter looking for real leadership or change.
Those who claim to offer choice or change served up failures like three-time loser Ron Paul, the oddball Texas Congressman whose only real claim to fame as a string of racist newsletters he claims he never authored but also never really refuted.
Paul may be gone but his legacy, if it can be called one, lives on in son Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator who may turn out to be even more of a failure than his old man. Some call Rand Paul a leading contender for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016. If true, the party of the elephant is even more lost in the ozone than ever.
American politics has descended into a sideshow that most carnivals would shun. Congressional leaders like John Boehner in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate are sick jokes. Potential Presidential candidates are judged more for their celebrity status than any actual qualification as leaders.
Republicans judge success by electing extremists to office: Congress members like Eric Cantor from Virginia or Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota are considered viable elected officials. In reality, they are miserable failures.
Same for the other side of the street. Democrats can’t hide the fact that they want a more-extremist liberal than Obama as their next candidate for President. Hardcore left-wingers in the party consider the current President too moderate and want someone more radical to succeed him.
Perhaps the answer lies in how the next ballots for President and Congress are structured.
It might be best to allow voters to say they don’t want any of the candidates elected to office.
So why not offer “none of the above” as a viable, and binding, ballot choice.
If “none of the above” gets more votes than any candidate, then no one is elected and a new election, with all new candidates, must be held within 60 days.
Could such a plan work?
Will it happen?
Not a chance.
Such a change in ballot law must be passed by the very people who would lose if Americans were offered a chance to say “no” to any of the candidates.
Including the current crop of failures who occupy seats in Congress and the Oval Office.
Copyright © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue