The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Winner Is...

...me?

Well, it sure could be IF I had a good grass roots campaign made up of people that are completely fed up with the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as those fed up with the Republicans and the Democrats. It stands to reason that right now that is the MAJORITY of Americans, and not - as both parties would claim - the minority of voters. What proof have they that more Americans would vote for their party than for someone who is not affiliated with a party? Nobody really does that poll question on a continuous basis. But they should make it a mandatory question: which non-party candidate would you support over the Democratic and Republican candidates at this point?

It's not far-fetched at all to say that I could become a favorite candidate if I --- or anyone else, for that matter of fact --- decided at the last minute to challenge the balloting procedures in every state in the union and allow a non-partisan candidate to become one of the presidential candidates on the November 2012 ballot. It's entirely possible that some courts would want to throw it out on the grounds that the electoral college rules prohibit someone from going on the ballot after a certain date before the presidential election unless...and we all know that those rules would include signature petitions, and all of the regular requirements to become President of the United States of American. Well, frankly, I believe I would qualify under the provisions necessary for age, citizenry (there's no question because I was born in Missouri), and the other eligibility requirements. Well, perhaps save the petitions and the challenges by the major parties that they should be allowed to disqualify a candidate because he or she is not in one of the to major parties. See, they've done this type of runaround on Libertarians, Green Party candidates, and other non-party candidates in the past 40 years.

IF I were to find a way to build a party within the next 60 or so days, I may qualify under the guidelines that seem patently unfair to the American voter. Indeed, that's a charge I am willing to stick with, too. American voters find the two-party system to be unfair and are fed up with how each side is bickering about the same issues --- both parties, meanwhile, are causing the same problems decade after decade.

And while the two parties continue their gridlock in Congress, the failures of American businesses to recover during an economic recession and depression continue. This gridlock is not really to blame for the lack of employment opportunities at this very moment. No, that's more as a result of bad legislation passed by Congress during the past 16 years and bad policies of the 21st Century presidential administrations - plural.

But let's all call it what it is --- an economic boondoggle because neither side wants the other side to "win", therefore causing a basket case government administration for the second consecutive chief executive. "Bailout" legislation did nothing to stimulate the economy as President George W. Bush promised. The same can be said for the administration of President Barack Obama. This money only did one thing that fails ALL American taxpayers --- gave money to companies that need to fail. Excuse me, but "too big to fail" is simply not truth, not intelligent in ANY WAY, and only adds to the misery because it allows those companies that should absolutely be bankrupt to continue to do one major thing --- steal from those that they should have been releasing from their debt rolls. Yes, that's right --- this is not redistribution of wealth, as Republicans would charge --- this is not a socialist move --- this is not a way to recoup tax dollars as the Democrats would want in order to keep a company in business. This is not something that benefits those political parties. This is the ideal situation for Americans that are not tied up in owning too many shares of stock in CitiCorp and the other conglomerate banks that got bailout money. You see, the reason to let these companies go belly up is this: if they cannot employ tactics to bully the average credit card holder (like they did by purchasing the little banks' credit card accounts in order to jack up their fees and interest rates), then those Americans suddenly have some money to save and spend once again. Wow --- stimulating the economy from the ground up. Amazing --- the idea that allowing the corporations to be bankrupt would actually stimulate the economy? That is basic economics. None of these giant corporations would be causing the unemployment rate to go up dramatically --- none of them. Why? Because the layoffs had already decimated their ranks. 4500 fewer CitiBank employees here and there --- those are more recent numbers --- over a period of the past 8 years --- well, it means these corporations had already become "lean". Therefore, it also stands to reason that laying off the rest of their workforce is only going to create another stimulating effect: new businesses will be created in the wake of the demise of such a conglomerate. This is to say that some middle to low level managers --- with direct knowledge of part of the business that operates successfully from a legal standpoint --- will open up a firm of their own and take on clients that need services to keep them open or growing.

Does Mitt or Rick or Newt or Barack have any ideas like these that will actually HELP the economy turn around?

If so, I have not read about them. Thus far it has been about soundbites that "as president, I will end this cycle of joblessness..." ...with NO substantive reasons for it happening. Or, how about this one: "My job record shows that as (insert political office - causing immediate disinterest in the rest of the blah-blah-blah) my administration was responsible for the growth of jobs in (state or sector of the economy...again, not something that we can say was caused by that candidate, so much as timing of their being in office coincides with a business actually expanding their operations...usually with a tax break, big TIF money, and promises of jobs 25 years down the road) during my last push for job growth." If the candidate points to that, he's only trying to promise corporate lies, all but spoon fed by a company that offered a short term solution --- for its own profits --- that will not help the job picture over a long period. And he or she did nothing to accomplish the greater good for job growth, no matter how much they may try to play that "I did this" card.

What do I offer versus them? Certainly one thing that a lot of Americans want: I have not held a political office before. Translation? I'm not robbing you blind and causing your benefits to be decreased or taxes to be raised BECAUSE I AM NOT IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

Admittedly, that will get me fewer votes in the eyes of many people. But if I were running and said the right things, even those who want someone with loads of political experience but are tired of how the current set of individuals is playing politics will look at me as a viable candidate for president.

Now, the thing that stops me from becoming a viable candidate has absolutely nothing to do with politics. No, that thing is my personal life --- something that I value much more than politicians do when they are running for office. To them the family and friends are to be used as allies for soundbites and smiles. Those soundbites and smiles truly show that some of these people have started off genuine. It doesn't take long for that genuine family situation to become a power tripping avenue for the office holder. And those smiles become painted on the family and friends along with the disingenuous "everything's fine" that comes along with knowing there is a family member that needs more of them than they thought they would have to give --- be present for camera rolls or answer the home phone at 4:15 am to have them awaken the politician for comment on a story. Try being the family member that answers those calls in a friendly manner --- this is one of those things that I've had to do as a reporter (not necessarily at 4:15 am, mind you...I would rather never make one of those calls): make a tough phone call to a home number. That spotlight burns too bright for families. That's probably the biggest reason I am not considered to be a viable candidate in my own estimation.

But --- IF I were the middle-of-the-road, non-partisan political office seeker --- this would be the year to run for President of the United States (POTUS) of America because the rancor between the two main parties (D, R) has made most voters ready to throw them on their collective carcasses. That, and at this point, I don't see a good middle of the road candidate in the running. So, I'd be a better candidate than what's been MADE available to date.

There's one other thing --- I am not a millionaire, so I am not a Washington insider. That would qualify me better than most of Congress or the governors of so many of our states in the eyes of the people. And last time I checked, the country is really supposed to have a government run by the people, for the people.