A National Primary Wouldn't Work

Absolutely and Positively Right -- no national primaries. But no regional primaries, either -- because that would just cut down on the number of primaries.

The current long, drawn out Republican Primaries have been invaluable to the voters -- because it gives the voters a true picture of the candidates as they are forced to fight for votes State by State, Primary by Primary.

We get a chance to get a full all around perspective of each candidate, as they travel through each State -- and are forced to address local concerns. Do these people have consistency in what they say? Do they pander to local interests, even in violation of what they say are immutable principles? They are forced into more situations where impromptu questions are asked, and they need to say what they really believe or what they really know.

A national primary would just have the candidates focus on national media (and/or only in major population centers). So we would only get a carefully scripted, air-brushed view of the candidates.

This current Republican Primary has given me a much, much better understanding of the would be Republican alternatives to President Obama.

Personally, I think Obama has been -- sadly -- a poor president. And there was a time that I thought Romney might be an alternative. But all these primaries have dis-abused me of any idea that any of the Republicans --except, maybe Ron Paul (but with major reservations)-- has a clue to how to solve any of America's pressing problems: terrible economy with high unemployment, soaring national deficit, still going around the world stoking up conflicts, still eroding civil liberties, etc. leaving a terrible America to our kids.

stevchipmunk of PA 4:45PM March 11, 2012