Expectations?

One person always told me, "Be thankful you have a job, that your employer hired you instead of someone else," or words to that effect. I found that to be a defeatist sentiment and liked to turn it around. In my view, my employer should have been thankful to have me as an employee. That may or may not have been true, but it wasn't a one-sided deal. I guess I've always thought that about college, too. How did I get into that place? What other qualified high schools didn't get in because I did? Rather than feel guilty that I wasn't the best student ever accepted or to graduate, I realize that I had some things that the school needed or at least wanted from me. And it used those things to its advantage. Again, it was not a one-sided transaction. Each of us gained benefit from it.

This is an introduction to the Republican theater called "the nomination process." It looks as if the nominee is going to be Mitt Romney, unless there are some very unexpected changes. And, the stories are now coming out, he is the only "electable" Republican candidate, the only one who can "beat Obama," that Obama needs to be defeated at any cost. It's sort of the old argument above, in a way.

Is this, really, the "best" the Republicans can do? I, for one, am weary of this. Look at the very mediocre candidates they have thrown at us for the past couple of decades: the two Bushes, Dole, McCain, and now Romney. Do they really reflect Republican values, at least more traditional Republican values? Can any argue that Dukakis, Clinton, Algore, Kerry, and Obama didn't represent the mainstream Democratic Party? Of course they did and the Democrats nominated a Democrat, one of their own. Have the Republicans done that or have they elected someone who was thought to be "electable," regardless of how mainstream Republican he was?

Of course, maybe the "mainstream Republican" values have changed. Maybe the party has evolved into a different party. That's fine, but then perhaps it's time for a new party, a third party, to challenge the other two. I know the conventional wisdom is that a third party is a waste of time, that it will ensure Democratic victory/ies, etc. But this same conventional wisdom has given us "electable" candidates who have allowed the Democrats to nibble away, taking a little here and a little there, getting exactly what they want, although perhaps a bit slower than desired. We didn't get where we are today with one big revolutionary move; it's taken decades of little changes. Keep adding 1 + 1 + 1 +1.... Maybe people's interests and views would be much better represented by a third party. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Aren't Republican voters tired of "holding their noses" and voting for the least undesirable candidate? How much better to vote for a good candidate instead of the better of two bad ones!