As things start to unfold in the race for the Republican nomination, I’ve become keenly aware of a very frightening reality: We’re on the verge of getting stuck with four more years of Obama, and if that happens, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of the people who want him in office the least.

First, people underestimate Obamas intelligence, he’s exceedingly smart, and Boehner is playing into his hand at every turn. As a result, a lot of the middle ground voters that republican voters picked up in the mid term elections will be gone by the time November rolls around, mostly due to Boehner and what has to be the most ridiculously arrogant congress we’ve had in decades. They believe that because we stood up and said “enough” and put republicans back in the majority in the house, they can literally do whatever they want. They seem ignorant of the fact that they won seats in the senate, but not enough to gain a majority, and that the overall election results were only slightly in favor of republicans.

Then of course he’s going to get the vote of people who probably couldn’t even name two of the republican candidates, but are voting for Obama because of who he is, not because of his policies or what he stands for (If you require more explanation than this, you may as well stop reading here, your energy would be better spent improving your education or pulling your head out of your ass, whichever may be the case.

On the other side of the fence, you’ve got republican voters, divided into four groups, and this is where problems start to arise.

Group one is the tea party voters, or, as I like to call them, the mass brainwashed. Realistically, this is the kool-aid party, and they’re only missing a guy named Jim to pass out the delicious cyanide laced beverage. The tea party voters seem to like indecisive wishy washy candidates who make a lot of noise about being ultra conservative and/or religious, or, sans that option, they seem more than happy to vote for someone who’s insanity is only rivaled by their idiocy. The result is a whole bunch of candidates who not only perfectly fit that voting criteria, but at the same time, are exactly what the tea party was supposed to be against in the first place, pro-establishment politicians. Of course, the tea party isn’t really the tea party anymore, and hasn’t been since it let itself become the bought and paid for springboard to Sarah Palins foxnews career since her political career was going nowhere fast. So the potentially largest single block of unified republican voters isn’t unified at all. Their votes are scattered  amongst multiple candidates. If one of those candidates doesn’t win the nomination, theres no telling what will happen with the tea party vote in 2012. If one of these candidates forges ahead as an independent, forget it, we’re stuck with four more years of Obama, as the numbers needed to beat him will be too divided.

The second group of voters are the informed. They look at the issues, paying particular attention to those that matter most to them (the beauty of a democracy, choose the candidate that best represents your beliefs, right?) and make a decision based on that information. Most of these voters will compromise on one or two issues, in order to get the candidate who they believe will truly be the best leader for the country. This group’s problem is twofold. First, they are few in number compared to the other groups. Second, the candidates they vote for rarely fit the mold that the average sheep citizen is looking for in a candidate. It only takes one non-conformist idea (legalize pot is a perfect example) to prevent the uninformed masses from voting for this candidate (“what, he/she wants to legalize pot!? Oh noes, let me vote for whoever else is on the ballot, I don’t care who, even if I have no clue where they stand on the issues!!) This group will still vote for that individual, and when the dust settles and some idiot is trying his hardest to screw up this country in his short four years because the uninformed voted him in, this group of voters will hold their head high and have a clear conscience, even if they are more than just a little angry about the state of affairs of our government.

The third group are the voters who vote based on “electability” instead of who they actually think would be the best leader. These cowards refuse to stand up for what they actually believe in (or maybe not, if you’re willing to vote this way in the first place, maybe you’re just an apathetic loser anyway) and instead they willingly vote with the masses on an “I guess so” candidate they think will get the most votes.  These schmucks are the second most responsible group of people for the current state of our nation. They’ll vote for whoever wears the right suit, the right tie, runs the perfect campaign blend of good vibe vs awful smear commercials. Blithering idiot? They don’t care as long as you’re name sounds like it could be a kid from down the block and your smile is nice. Flip flopper on a grand scale? What flip flop? They are too busy admiring his awesome hair and his trustworthy smile (you know, because the average person is the perfect judge of character when it comes to nice smiles, right Ted Bundy?) In short, these people vote for politicians above all else. Hence, why our countries political system has gone to complete crap since the invention of the television. You think either of the Roosevelts would have stood a chance of being elected had people been able to see what they looked like prior to voting for them? Nope. Back then, you actually had to listen to what a candidate had to say, which meant that candidate had to be able to speak better than the average 4^th grader, and had to be consistent, because folks were listening to what you really had to say; *gasp* what a concept. Nowadays, you could almost get away with calling debates pageants, because that’s all they are, they don’t even debate anymore, because no one can actually put a sensible thought together,  and when they do, the other 5 blithering idiots are too busy interrupting him for him to get that idea out in his allotted time. And why? All because this group of voters has no idea what real leadership is, they just THINK they know what it looks like…

And last, as well as least, the bottom of the barrel of voters. The truly apathetic (or just remove the ‘a’, it would still be appropriate). Even more so than the group listed above, this group will tell you in casual conversation “I don’t care about politics”. Well then, why don’t you move your ass to somewhere they don’t have politics. Cuba would suit you well. I think there are a few African nations with military dictators where you would never have to worry yourself with silly things like, you know, who is going to actually run the country in which you reside. These people either don’t vote at all, because they just can’t be bothered (i.e. they don’t care) or they actually do vote, and then they do so based on some ridiculous criteria, like name recognition, or something about some candidate they heard from some guy they work with over in accounting who they suppose knows what he’s talking about. Personally, I’d rather they just don’t vote at all, on the condition that the first time they complain about literally ANYTHING, someone punch them in the mouth. These people will commonly defend their position with the phrase “It doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing will change, all politicians are the same anyhow” If that’s the case, and you’ve ever used that sorry excuse, lets examine a few things:
Obamas health care bill. Not much change huh? Not much, except a sweeping all out change to the way health care will operate in this country going forward. And Bushes tax cuts, which personally saved my family about 900 bucks a year for about 6 years. Or the war on terror? I’m pretty sure that’s an awful lot of change for the families of those who lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the Patriot Act. Whats a little watering down of your constitutional rights when it comes to your personal safety, right? Just watch what you say, or who you talk to, hate to see that non-change get you stuck in Guantanamo. How about the Clinton policies that ultimately lead to banking practices that almost crashed the entire global economy into the dark ages. You know, the ones that put your mortgage underwater? Or what about Reagan and the policies and posturing that, combined with the right political climate at the right time ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union?

Then theres the other excuse “it’s only one vote, I won’t make a difference” No, if you were the only person that changed your mind, got off your butt and voted, or, if you already vote indiscriminately, voted with your conscience based on information, you’re right, it wouldn’t make a difference. But if all of you got off the couch at the same time and voted, I can assure you, it would be a difference maker. But I’d hate to disturb the perfect little bubble in which you exist. Whats that? Your life isn’t perfect? Then vote for someone whom you believe might change that, or stfu, because if you don’t vote, and some president comes along and does something you don’t like, the constitution only provides you first amendment free speech rights as protection from the government, not from the punch in the mouth I hope someone gives you the first time you open it to complain.

Now, lets examine the other half of this upcoming travesty, the current candidates.

Newt Gingrich. This man is the penultimate politician. That is to say, this guy could be stroking you with one hand, and slipping the wallet out of your pocket with the other, and you’d think it was all ok, meanwhile he’s telling your wife everything she wants to hear while his forked tongue is slipping her diamond earrings off without her ever noticing. I trust this guy about as far as I would someone who tried to sell me a bottle that was actually labeled snake oil. You know that image you get when you picture the stereotypical used car salesman? Turquoise jewelry, cowboy boots, hideous blazer, and a neverending smile? Newt is the political equivalent to that same image. He could come out and say he shares my view on every single political issue, and I still wouldn’t vote for him. His biggest draw will be with people in group four above. Everyone knows his name, so they’ll vote for him. “Yeah, I know that name! What do you mean what does he stand for, you’ve heard of him before, haven’t you? Isn’t that enough?” /vomit

Rick Santorum. Pretty boy #1. Holy shit, what a flake. He stands about as firm on issues as overcooked pasta.  This guy is “supposedly” a religious conservative, but he can’t even make a firm decision and statement about abortion? If theres one constant amongst all religious conservative voters, it’s that every one of them will beat you bloody with the abortion debate. A candidate could literally descend from the sky, walk on water, say all the right things, and if he said one thing that indicated he was pro choice, they’d burn him at the stake. If he can’t even get the story right for what is supposed to be his core group, he has no chance against Obama, who maintains the vote of the ridiculously uninformed. Mr Santorum will garner votes from groups 1 and 3 above.

Rick Perry, aka, the other pretty boy. When he first came out, and his campaign put out his stance on issues, I thought, hey, this guy might be alright. Then I saw him talk. *sigh*. If it’s medically possible, him and Rick Santorum might actually share a brain. That’s about how smart they each are. But at least when he’s being wishy washy, Santorum can maintain a head of steam in a speech. Perry can’t even remember where he stands on the issues, how the fuck is that even possible? If you ACTUALLY have a stance on an issue, then you don’t just forget what it is. If I’m pro-death penalty (which I am) I’m not going to get on a stage, and suddenly become unsure of my convictions. I might forget the words to a speech if I’m a little struck with stage fright, but forget what I believe in? Really? Really sad, that’s what I say. What Mr Perry is very good at though, is attacking other candidates for not being as conservative as he is… but he’s not conservative, he’s not anything at all, he’s a puppet. Did you know that Texas is one of the states that put the federal stimulus money to it’s best uses? Actually creating jobs, and using the money for what it was intended? Meanwhile, Perry makes a point of being anti-Obama by constantly mentioning how useless the stimulus was… Can you say loser?

Sarah Palin, oops, I mean, Michele Bachmann. This woman is either an evil super genius, or she is just as stupid as she seems. There simply can be no in between. If she’s an evil super genius, then she’s doing an ok job of capitalizing on Palins popularity with tea party voters , by acting as stupid as Palin, and as crazy as Palin backed Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell. Neither bid is working out for her politically, but I don’t think that’s her plan. She seems to spend as much time doing news and talk show interviews as she does actually campaigning, and I’m starting to think she’s actually only in this for the name/face recognition she’ll get which can be put to good use getting a half hour slot after Palin on Fox News once her term in congress comes to an end. Or, the alternate is she’s just really a half crazed, low IQ politician who actually thinks people will vote for her to lead this country. She’ll pull a handful of votes from the tea party because she’ll remind them fondly of Palin and her lost chances /eyeroll, and she’ll pull a handful of votes from group four above, because they’re just stupid enough to vote for someone based on knowing not a thing about her (anyone who’s paid attention to her, and has a clean bill of mental health, would not vote for this woman, even those from aforementioned group 4)

Mitt Romney. Oh. My. Lord. I could right a blog entry about this guy all on his own. Former cut throat business owner. Former governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All around swell guy. This guys has a salesmans smile and a handshake that I’ll bet makes you feel as a good as a Korean massage parlor. Mitts claim to fame in this campaign is that as an operator of big business, he knows how to create jobs, and he can bring that experience to the white house and help our economy. If you’re buying into this load, read the next part carefully… It’s all a pack of lies. Romney got rich by downsizing to maximize profits. He literally made a living laying people off, it was his specialty. He would take a company toeing the line, put in more “efficient” policies, lay a ton of people off, and watch the money roll right into his wallet. If Mitt was running on a promise to reduce the size of government, make it more efficient, less bloated and less expensive to run, I would literally have no problem believing he could do just that. But he’s not. He keeps telling people he can create jobs. Wrong story bro. As for his political career, this guy was elected by quite possibly the worst block of voters in the US to run their state. I have a LOT of friends and family in Massachusetts. But let’s be honest, this state kept Ted Kennedy in office for 8 elections, over a span of almost 47 years. Are you kidding me? Let me re-iterate. The same people that elected Mitt Romney, elected an alcoholic killer to the senate 8 times. To make matters even more clear, they’ve also maintained Barney Frank as a member of Congress for the past 30 years and running, SIXTEEN terms. Let’s be clear, I could care less that the guy is gay, it doesn’t even bother me that he tried to legalize a red light district in Boston (a good idea if you ask me, but I won’t get into why right at this time) Nope. What bothers me most is the most recent election. It was already out that Barney Frank, as a chief member of the Financial Services Committee, had completely failed in his job, and was at least partially responsible for doing absolutely nothing when he had the chance, to prevent the housing bust which crushed our economy. In 2003, he shot down a bill which might have changed the way things ended up, and said this in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac : “These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing” and in 2008, he said (just before the sky fell on his head): "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Well said dumbass, how very forward looking of you. Way to see the writing on the wall. Then the people of Massachusetts re-elected him. Are. You. Kidding. Me. When you invite someone over your house, you might have no clue that they were going to shit on your carpet while your kids are watching. But once they do, do you actually invite them to come back tomorrow? /facepalm.  If you think the people of Massachusetts have done a good job historically of picking out their elected officials, then by all means, vote for Romney, but even with his awful track record in business aside, the fact that Massachusetts found him electable ruins it for me.  Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of his business record. Even fewer people have any idea how awful Massachusetts voters are at choosing leadership (Mayor Menino for FIVE terms, R E A L L Y!?!?) And on the rest of the issues, Mitt is fairly middle of the road, mostly because he’s more business than politics, and doesn’t really know enough about non-economic issues to take much of a stance. He has a general vibe of that “electability” trait I mentioned earlier. He’s not particularly extreme, so he won’t offend to many folks. He’s clean cut. He’s a family man. This is going to get him a lot of votes from group 3, with a good smattering of votes from groups 1 and 4. Against Obama, with none of the other candidates involved in the race as an independent, Romney could win I believe, mostly by getting more or less all of the republican vote and enough of the independents that are fed up with Obama to give us a win, if you call four more years of suckage, a win. Amazing. Sad, but amazing.

Ron Paul. To look at him, Ron Paul fits the mold of the “old school” politician. You know, Helms, Thurman, etc. But to hear him talk and if you actually listen to what he has to say, what he believes in ad where he stands on the issues, things change completely. I don’t agree with Mr Paul on all of the issues, but I agree with him wholeheartedly on the most serious issues. His views are somewhat offbeat, or, as some of his doubters say, “extreme”. But his ideas are really only all that extreme if you are really all that closeminded. Yes, he proposes some drastic changes to our government structure, as well as some major changes to our foreign policy. If you think we’re doing fine in both areas, and our government is not a bureaucratic disaster, then by all means vote for someone else. If you somehow believe our foreign policy as the worlds policeman and international money sponge is working out just great when we have children right here in this country that are homeless, starving, or both, then by all means stick with the status quo. Mr Paul believes very strongly in the constitution and his stance on issues is proof of that. He is somewhat religious conservative, and is against gay marriage and is anti-abortion. BUT. He believes that these issues are for states to decide, not the federal government. And he’s right. The constitution specifically states that any domain not mentioned within it, is for the states to govern, not the federal government. Mr Paul also has the downside of being older than the other candidates by a good margin. A factor that many believe makes him a one term president at best. And? I’d rather have four years of good change than four more years of BS. He doesn’t flex on his beliefs, he doesn’t take 5 minutes of explanation for a yes/no question, he knows what his plans are, not just what his goals are. Romney tells you he will create jobs, but can’t tell you how he plans to do it. Bachmann tells you she’ll get the economy back on track, but can’t explain for one second how she intends to do it. Ask Ron Paul what he plans to do about the budget, and he’ll tell you exactly how he’ll shrink government, right down to the departments he would downsize or eliminate. He’ll tell you that he plans to cut foreign spending, and pull our troops back to within our own borders to reduce military costs. Every politician tells you what they want to accomplish, almost NONE of them can tell you exactly what plans they have to get it done though. Then we elect them, and none of it ever comes to fruition, because they never had a plan in the first place, and you’re not going to get much done if you don’t know how you want to do it. Some people doubt Mr Pauls ability to accomplish his goals. But, he’s wisely chosen his moves as ones a president can pull off with little or no interference from Congress. Foreign Aid. Sure, congress makes the budget, but this is an area that the president has a lot of influence over. Military? He might not have the power to completely close a base without approval from the Military Oversight Committee, but he can certainly pull enough troops from it to make it senseless to keep open. Government cutbacks of entire departments? He can pull that off with a simple signature. Closing an entire department might be more tricky, but not impossible. Sure, there are other things he’d like to do that are likely unattainable without a very cooperative Congress, but the things already mentioned would create more useful change than the last 3 presidents combined over the past 20 years. Mr Paul does have some problems though. He lacks the electability factor, and in a primary race against Santorum and Romney, he’s going to have a hard time beating either. He’s not a puppet, which means even if he makes an excellent showing and is able to hang in there, it’s unlikely he’ll get the party nomination. They’d rather have someone they can puppet, so the government can continue the raping of the middle class until we literally just don’t have a country anymore. Santorum would make the ultimate puppet, but I think Romney would get the nomination based on that electability factor (i.e. how many idiots can we get to vote for this guy without knowing anything about who he really is?) But, in truth, If he could get the nomination, I believe Ron Paul might be the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. He’s most likely to pull the independent vote, because he’s actually not as extreme as most people think. He’s very center when it comes to politics, very common sense vs party politics. He’ll also pull a lot of the young vote because I think young voters are in favor of his foreign policies as well as his desire to limit government interference in personal lives. Oh, and he wants to repeal the Patriot Act and abolish the TSA, both good moves in the eyes of young voters. This basically steals away the same group that helped Obama get elected in ’08. But, he would have to get the nomination first, and while I’ll certainly vote for him, I highly doubt he’ll get the call.  Mr Paul will get 90% of the vote from group 2. He'll get a handful of the smarter folks from group 1. He'll even get a little of the group 4 vote based on name recognition. He'll get almost none of group 3 unless he actually gets the Republican nomination.

What we're left with is most likely Romney vs Obama. Romney is going to get the Republican vote, but he's not exactly going to inspire people to vote, so he'll only get the dedicated voters into the booths. He'll get a smattering of moderates and independents. Obama will get the liberal democratic base. He'll get that other vote I mentioned earlier. In the end, probably very close race, but which way the nickel would land is hard to say, an in my eyes, irrelevant. Some people are rallying to the ridiculous cry of "anyone but Obama". I'm not an Obama fan, but given the choice between shitty and shittier, I'd probably vote for neither and vote Libertarian if they have someone on the NC ballot, or write in.