The Right to Be Stupid

The Liberal and the Conservative communities in American politics are both imperfect movements.  They both have good ideas, a few leaders who are truly interested in the betterment of the nation, and a significant portion of the voting public that is fiercely loyal to their ideals.  Unfortunately, they each have a fairly sizable group of idiots who seem to reside mainly in leadership positions for each national party.  This particular post is looking at that extreme element in each movement; not the portion of each that tends towards the middle and moderation.  That center is becoming more and more difficult to inhabit.  The decisions that each of us as citizens are faced with are increasingly polarized; posed in terms of win/lose, far left/far right, with me/against me, or perhaps the most despicable of all…evil vs. good.  How the fringe elements of each movement have managed to rise to such a level of influence as to disproportionately dictate the principles for the entire group is something I will leave to the history books.  I will, however, comment on the real life impact of that phenomenon.

Accepting the premise that it is the foundation of our nation’s government and at the risk of gross oversimplification, the fundamental difference between the Far Left and the Far Right is their view of the Constitution.  The Far Right purports to be strict constitutionalists.  To them, the Constitution is a document that was written in such a way as to be literally and eternally applicable.  The remedy for any necessary variation or revision to its original content is the amendment process.   In their view, it is the role of the federal Judiciary to interpret the laws and regulations promulgated by the Legislative and Executive branches as either being compliant with the Constitution’s written word or not.  They insist that legal remedies for the inevitable and evolutionary changes in our society and government be initiated and implemented in accordance with a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  And if that process becomes unworkable or dysfunctional due to political gridlock, then so be it.  The status quo shall be maintained until some nonspecific solution at some unspecified time in the future arrives to remove the impediments to orderly and constitutional change.

The Far Left has embraced the concept of the living Constitution.  While participating in the constitutional processes of governance, they insist on the premise that even though the Constitution is the bedrock document for our country, it is an aged document that must be brought into the current framework of our society through both interpretation and implementation.  They see it as an original framework that was fully intended, even necessarily mandated, to evolve as our culture changes and morphs through generations.  More than any other area of disagreement between the two political philosophies, their differing views on the role of the federal Judiciary is in stark contrast to the Far Right.  And even though both parties, depending on their majority/minority status at the time, have embraced or condemned extraordinary Legislative and Executive actions; the Far Left clearly and definitively see the Judiciary as overlords of social and governmental change.  This Judicial activism is a fundamental canyon that exists between the two movements and the strategic leverage of the competition lies in the unpredictable process of Executive appointments; how they fall, where they fall, and when they fall.  And even though it gets far less attention than the Legislative and Executive happenings in our government, this particular battle between the two movements is the true war of wills that most impacts the American people.

Each side has obvious flaws to their rigid beliefs and actions, but there is one particular trait possessed by the Far Left that has become extremely dangerous to the health of our nation.  The Far Right can be didactic and self-righteous in their profession of conservative values.  They are oftentimes clearly disingenuous when they publicly acknowledge the Far Left’s right to be different; but then publicly state this right with a “looking down your nose” attitude.  Additionally, they sometimes are too quick to equate the terms of the debate with a win or lose definition; abusing the “compromise on practice but never on principle” axiom.  They sometimes tend towards framing everything as principle.  The Far Left oftentimes calls these Far Right tendencies small-minded.  And if we want to keep the debate on a technical and above-board level, that description is pretty fair.  But the development that concerns me most is the ever-increasing actions by the Far Left to frame political debates in stark terms of “good versus evil” and their solution to political defeat being “burn it down”.  The snobbery and high-handed airs taken on by the Far Left are legendary in their display.  They have always seen themselves as superior beings to those that might disagree with them and have always thought that they know better what is best for all than anyone else involved in the process…including all.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter

@centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Tolerance is a necessary ingredient for democracy.  There must be room in our society, culture, and government for the coexistence of different values and ideals.  Now there will be occasions when tolerance is superseded by a fundamental notion of right or wrong.  Such tension is exquisitely illustrated by the ongoing debates surrounding abortion, capital punishment, or gay rights.  These, and others, are the great questions of our time and will define us as a nation and as a people.  Our ability, or inability, to discover a way to settle these great debates in a civil fashion is the quintessential challenge to our existence as a country.  But setting aside the bigger and more profound questions, which are in relative terms small in number; the way that each political faction has been approaching the more mundane issues of governance lately is problematic.  While the Far Right has certainly used Legislative trickery and Executive actions to their benefit when in power; they have not exercised as great a license in these areas as the Far Left.  And there can be no debate about the clear abuse of the Judiciary power that has been exhibited by the Far Left.  Liberal activist Judges are pushing judicial limits all across our nation.  If you accept the proposition of a living constitution; you must also accept the inherent dangers of irrational federal Judges exhibiting poor judgment in autonomously altering constitutional interpretation. 

But the extreme Liberal community in our nation seems to have entered into a new area of dogma.  They now advocate tolerance simply for the sake of tolerance.  They have taken the “agree with me or be damned” argument to new heights.  They have forgotten how to lose graciously and have adopted a new approach of “control it or burn it down”.   Taken at its face value, tolerance for the sake of tolerance is simply an absence of principle.  There are certain things that cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  On the other hand, by and large, in a nation such as ours that was built on diversity and autonomy; reasonable tolerance is a necessary ingredient for America.  The Far Right must come to grips with the fact that every time a disagreement comes up, it cannot be automatically placed in the principle rather than the practice category.  The Far Left must understand that every time someone dares to disagree with their specific prescription for living, it is not nuclear war and their opponents are not Neanderthals.  In our country, each one of us has the right to be stupid…as long as that stupidity does not infringe on another’s rights.  That, my friends, is the delicate balance that is being pursued.

College Football Foolishness Redux

In January of 2017, I wrote a post regarding the NCAA College Football Championship system.  Standing here nearly two years later, little has changed.  College football is still ruled by the NCAA Carnival of Clowns who decide, in their infinite wisdom, when a good loss is superior to a bad win.  Who decide that simply because team A defeated team B in the regular season, and all other things being relatively equal, there is nothing to prevent them from deeming team B a more deserving team as far as the college championship selection is concerned.  Additionally, and most wonderful of all, they can determine that regardless of what their respective regular season won-loss records are, certain teams deserve favorable selection treatment because they are playing their best football at the end of the regular season.  How the colleges of America can continue to allow their athletic programs to be held hostage by this power-hungry band of bungling bureaucrats is simply beyond my comprehension.  It is like watching a person witness their car burning up while holding a fire extinguisher in their hands…unused.  Just in the last couple of weeks, Washington State coach Mike (the Pirate) Leach pontificated about a college football playoff possibility.  Is there no one else thinking about the absurdity of the status quo?

Once again, under the worst case scenario, the NCAA College Football Championship should be settled from a pool of not less than eight teams selected to play in a single-elimination tournament with pairings being determined by common-sense seeding.  Under the best case scenario, the NCAA will look at Dan Wetzel’s plan (coming up below) and return the college football championship back to the people who deserve it; the schools, the players, and the fans.  Now…let’s take another look at that post from January 15, 2017…

College Football Foolishness.  Any NASCAR fan has noticed a significant happening over the last few years…the crowds are shrinking.  All professional sports are contending with the newfound competition of affordable home viewing of sporting events.  High def televisions are easily affordable and when paired up with cable or satellite packages, watching the big game from home has become (for many) preferable to the stadium experience.  Even though the game-day experience is a unique and exciting process, the fact is that it has become very expensive and logistically more challenging.  There is a reason that new stadium and arena projects are focusing more on the individual fan experience rather than the number of fans the structure can accommodate.  Consistently selling out seating capacity is far preferable to impressive, but less than capacity, crowds. 

Enter the college football post-season carnival.  What is the NCAA’s response to this new viewer challenge from the world of high tech?  In all of their wisdom, how have they decided to expand and improve their area of college athletics?  Why, of course…we will expand the college bowl landscape!  And because there will not be enough teams with winning records (such a pathetically low bar to clear) to populate the ever-increasing number of bowls, we will annually allow select teams with .500 winning percentages to complete in bowl games.  Pure genius!  And now, having created this master stroke of marketing, NCAA football is right there with NASCAR; the television cameras never show the stands because they are most times sparsely occupied.  I love college football, but post-season play should return to the traditional value of representing an award for outstanding season play; not an excuse for X number of additional practices and corporate sponsors wallowing in salary and expense excesses. 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter

@centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

This brings us inevitably to the NCAA college football playoff.  Perhaps I see things far too simply in black and white shades, but I continue to be astounded at the NCAA’s refusal to conduct an expanded college football playoff that will crown an annual champion, that is determined by actual plays made on the field, that will return the true excitement of the college football games to the campus where it best exists, and will once again make a conference championship something worth obtaining.  As long as a committee, or a computer program, or a combination thereof selects who is and who is not qualified to complete for the annual college football championship, there will be injustice in the process.  We need only look at the NCAA basketball tournaments for guidance.  Undeniably one of the most exciting events in sports, the NCAA basketball tournaments showcase the best of college basketball and effectively integrate the players, the students, the fans, and the media in an effective and mesmerizing blend of broadcast coverage.  Do the big name schools from the Power Five conferences usually win the tournament?  Yes, they do; but that is no reason to discount the occasional Cinderella that goes deep into the tournament with upsets and, on that rare and truly special occasion, wins the tournament outright. 

There are many who say that NCAA college football cannot logistically accomplish a tournament similar to the basketball model.  That is bull.  Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports long ago put forth the best blueprint I have seen for NCAA football championship playoff; here is your link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/college-football-playoff-plan-132100316--ncaaf.html .  In his proposal, Wetzel shatters all of the shallow and self-serving arguments put up by the vested interests (including the NCAA) that control college athletics.  THIS is how a college football champion should be decided and crowned.  With this system in place, every single regular season game will be meaningful because it will lead to the conference championship.  With this system in place, the treasure trove of dollars that postseason college football generates will go largely back to the universities that create the game; not the corporate carpetbaggers who profit from it.  With this system in place, every NCAA school that competes in football will have a real opportunity to compete for a championship on the field of play (not be arbitrarily eliminated by a committee of “chosen” men/women).  And with this system, the excitement and participation in the NCAA college football playoff will reach levels never before dreamed of and will be well-positioned to address the evolving landscape of college athletics going into the future.

Let’s put the fans back in the stands.  Let’s put the dollars back in the university budgets.  Let’s give every team a fair chance to compete for the top prize in their sport.  And most important of all, let’s get a true champion that is determined on the field of play and not as the result of NCAA Committee wrangling, dealing, and compromise.

A Place to Begin

Now that we have a Democrat House, a Republican Senate, a celebrity President, and no media whatsoever, there is pretty much universal opinion that we are in for at least two years of legislative gridlock.  The apparent tendency of each Party to cater to their bases probably makes that prediction pretty reliable.  However, if in some fairy tale world, some parallel universe where government actually governs, Mitch and Nancy and The Donald could all sit down in a room and get serious for a few moments….here is a good start towards actually doing their jobs….(retread post from March/2018)…

Term Limits.  I know, I know…who in their right mind could possibly believe that our noble Senators and Representatives would actually vote themselves out of a job?  I cannot argue with that logic.  But simply because it does not seem likely or easily attainable does not make it unworthy of pursuit.  There can be little doubt that a large portion of the problems surrounding our Congress is the fact that powerful Congressional people have been corrupted by their length of service and they simply refuse to give it up.  Additionally, the longer they live and work in the WDC environment, the more out of touch they become with the people and the communities they are sent there to serve.  Every Senator harbors a secret ambition to become President and once that ambition is shriveled by reality, the notion remains that they would be a better President than the one in the White House (looking at you, Jeff Flake).  The House was intended by the founders to be an ever-evolving body of citizens who took a bit of time from their routine lives to serve this nation.  Nowadays, every Representative appears to live with the impression that they were selected as the savior of divine government rather than the leading vote-getter from a handful of counties in their home state.  And the Presidents…they get elected to a four-year term and get no more than moved in the White House before they are running for re-election.  Every decision they seem to make is tinged with the impact it might have on the upcoming elections.  And of course, they all live under the illusion that they can remake this nation into that perfect ideal they hold in their infallible little heads. 

Give the President one, six-year term to accomplish their goals.  That is sufficient and it will eliminate having a campaigner-in-chief rather than a true Chief Executive.  Any Senator that serves more than three, six-year terms has forgotten what is like to be a regular citizen; they consider themselves royalty.  They are either actively running for a higher office or maneuvering around to benefit from someone else getting it.  EIGHTEEN years is sufficient.  And the House, where we have citizen representatives from our own home towns or areas…how long do they navigate about in WDC before they forget from whence they came and why they came?  These folks have to maintain a closer alliance with the homefolks because they represent such a smaller area with fewer people and serve far shorter terms in office.  If they are of sufficient caliber to be re-elected for six, two-year terms, I say let them have it.  But after twelve years in office, they should move on to another vocation. 

Biennial Budgeting.  This continuing fiscal circus of Keystone Kop impersonation that is being annually performed by our sitting Presidents and Congress has reached epic fail status.  The combination of sweetheart trades, omnibus packaging, continuing resolutions, and last minute annual appropriations panic composition has rendered the annual federal budgeting process a joke.  For whatever reason, Congress has proven itself clearly incapable of properly passing a federal budget prior to the year the spending plan is scheduled to be implemented.  This has led to ballooning deficits that neither party wants to acknowledge or discuss; a monstrous albatross that is being hung about the necks of our children.  It has led to extraneous and bizarre expenditures being shoveled into last minute legislation that nobody knows anything about…except those doing the shoveling.  It has led to federal agencies never being able to use good business practices to plan their staffing, their training, and their very missions in any type of responsible fashion.  It has gotten so bad that no one involved in the process feels any shame or accountability whatsoever for failing to perform the primary function for which they were elected.  A biennial budget will not solve all of the partisan wrangling that dogs the federal budget process; but if Congress and the President could ever manage to get just one biennial budget completed on time, prior to the implementation period, just think about what might be accomplished in the following two years.  Congress could actually hold real hearings and debates about priorities for federal spending.  Federal agencies could assimilate two-year plans of action about the best ways to implement legislation and law.  It is bound to clear up the water to some degree and it just…makes…good…sense.  Now most folks can only budget as far ahead as their reliable income will allow.   That is no problem for the government, however; if they need more money, they just print more money. 

Less Patronage; More Career; Beef Up the Hatch Act.  Increasingly, we are seeing a President assume their office in an environment soaked with partisan venom.  The party that is out of power seems intent on conducting guerrilla warfare against the party that is in power; all for the purpose or intent to paralyze the majority party’s policy initiatives with no consideration for good and effective government.  Although I don’t believe I have ever seen this phenomenon rise to the current level we see in the Resist Trump movement; it has indeed gone on for decades and was very much in play during Obama’s two terms.  How can we tamp this down and spend more time governing with less time…organizing? 

It is estimated that each new President appoints about 3,000 people based on political considerations; commonly referred to as patronage appointments.  The upside to this type of hire is that a President gets to select people of like mind and inclination; people who think like he does and will hopefully be loyal to his ideals.  The downside is that even though we know these folks will be true believers, we can only hope they will be competent to fulfill their duties and responsibilities.  That is not always the case.  Many times, people are rewarded more for their monetary contributions to the candidate than they are for their intelligence, capabilities, and accomplishments.  A competent true believer can significantly improve the implementation of a new President’s agenda and serve the government well.  An incompetent political hack serves no useful purpose, destroys the morale and stability that may already be in place, and simply serves as a placeholder until the next President comes around.  A poorly appointed patronage employee is resented by the majority of career civil service employees who serve alongside and subordinate to them; creating a toxic atmosphere for effectiveness and efficiency. 

In addition to the quality problems associated with patronage appointments; there is also the delays created by the need for Congressional approvals.  Many of the patronage appointment positions are essential and critical to the good performance of our government; but they get bogged down in the Congressional review process due to partisan chicanery.  It is not unusual these days for many important political appointment positions to remain vacant well into the mid-term or later of a newly-elected President.  A thorough review needs to be conducted and many of these patronage appointments need to be converted to career civil service positions.  Let the federal hiring system serve its purpose to select the best people for the jobs and then let these people develop a career of accomplishment serving our government.  Just imagine the increased efficiency that would be gained from continuity alone as we transfer power from administration to administration with far less turnover in federal agency managers. Think about how much more time would be available to a new President to accomplish their vision for our nation if they can more quickly put their team in place to implement that vision. These actions would not require amendments to the Constitution; only a bi-partisan group of leaders (please…don’t injure yourself laughing) from Congress who are more interested in government that works than they are in rewarding their contributors.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

And if we are going to convert a significant number of these patronage appointments to career spots, then we must simultaneously (in the same piece of legislation) review and strengthen the Hatch Act.  Generally speaking, the Hatch Act is the set of rules applying to federal employees that is intended to keep politics out of the fashion in which they perform their duties.  It is designed to prevent political conflicts of interests and eliminate favoritism infections in the administration of government policies.  The Hatch Act has been somewhat diluted and marginalized over the last several administrations and the prosecution of its violations have been largely cherry picked by random accusers with political vendettas.  Based on what we have learned in recent revelations about the FISA program, the DOJ’s questionable behavior, and the blatant politicization of government agencies by the Obama administration; it is abundantly clear that the Hatch Act needs to be reviewed and strengthened to prevent the future political poisoning that has been occurring in the halls of our government.

If these three initiatives were to become reality, a President would come into office with full confidence that they could get their team in place in short order and begin the process of fulfilling his or her campaign promises.  They would not be looking ahead to insuring their own re-election and they should more intently focus on actual policy.  Over their term in office, they should be in a position to greatly influence three biennial budgets, which should dramatically enable them to put their policy ideals into actual practice.  They would have serving beneath them in the many and varied layers of government more professionals and fewer politicians than any President before them; and they could rely on the promise that those federal employees were interested in performing their appointed duties to the best of their abilities and not scoring political points for selfish reasons.  It might not be sufficient to entirely eliminate the current spin cycle; but it would absolutely slow it down and put it on a new path towards rediscovering some sense of gravity in this crazy, vertigoesque environment we are now experiencing.

Please note that these are three basic, non-partisan, administrative changes that would not disproportionately impact either political party.  They would result in significant budget savings due to reduced administrative requirements and would effectively streamline the legislative process.  They would help our government to run more efficiently and more effectively.  They are common sense, pragmatic solutions to real problems.  All this means that they will likely never happen; not in a million years; a snowball’s chance in….well, you get the picture.

How We Select Our Leaders

I previously discussed my pursuit of political office in my home county of Grayson, Kentucky.  I ran for Magistrate of District 2 on November 6.  I ran as an Independent against a Republican candidate who had defeated the Incumbent in the Republican Primary.  I lost convincingly.

I had promised to write about my campaign win or lose; so here it is.  This was my first, and will be my last, pursuit of political office.  I have always been fascinated by politics and have followed it at the national level rather closely for several years.  Although the results of the elections have always been important to me, the actual mechanics of the elections have actually been a mystery to me.  Like everyone else, I listened to the talking heads in the media about their polls, their surveys, and their interviews with voters.  For all their claimed expertise and financial investment in predicting how and why and for whom people might vote, their record is not terribly impressive.  After the monumental miss on the 2016 elections by almost the entire media, the credibility of professional political prognosticators is at a fairly low ebb.  Therefore, like many people, my main interest in the political arena was in the cast of competitors on the stump during the election, the biographies of the candidates that I would be deciding amongst, and the victors still standing after all the voting is done.  This campaign of mine, be it ever so modest and insignificant in the bigger picture of the political universe, has somewhat opened my eyes to the mechanics of the political process that is taking place behind the campaign curtain.

I think the most important lesson I have learned about campaigns is that the action of voting is an art, not a science.  It is as personal to people as the choice of a truck, an entertainer, or even a restaurant.  It is, by and large, a greatly guarded and appreciated right by the majority of folks; but it also very much like health, homeowners, and life insurance.  Most people do not give it the time and effort it deserves prior to committing the act of actually voting.  They are driven and motivated by reasons and logic that is as varied, and as practical, as the population itself.  I think that perhaps the reason so many of the pollsters can miss so widely on their predictions is the fact that they try to apply logic and common sense to a process that does not always entail logic and common sense.  It is like trying to debate with a madman; it is pointless. 

Now the fact that a personal voting choice may not be based on logic or common sense does not invalidate its wisdom.  No one, after all, can predict with a high degree of reliability exactly how a candidate will perform should they be selected for office.  The gut feeling one has about a candidate could very well turn out to be superior to the history of that candidate’s performance.  A candidate might grow and mature as a decision maker once they assume their elected office.  The political environment in which elected candidates finds themselves post-election might have a tremendous influence on how and why they make the decisions they make.  The point is this:  Different people vote for different reasons; one method is not conclusively superior to another; and the pursuit of accurately predicting how a diverse group of voters will ultimately vote is, at best, a very iffy proposition.  This is perhaps the spice that makes the dish of democracy so delicious.  A political contest is not one that necessarily offers a right or wrong choice; it is simply one that offers different choices.

No matter how minor the office might be in the overall political hierarchy, it is a big deal when a candidate makes the personal decision to run for office.  The decision to run may at first seem capricious and without huge consequence; one of those throwaways like maybe going to the game Saturday…if the weather is nice.  But shortly after deciding to run for office, a campaigner comes to grips with the fact that you cannot do this thing halfheartedly; you must go full on.  You realize very quickly that the quest involves not just you, but all of your supporters.  They are invested, to varying degrees, in this enterprise in a very personal way.  Some of them will very likely be more invested than you; living vicariously through you in the political adventure.  This inability to reconsider your initial choice to run for office has the effect of ratcheting up the pressure on the campaign and creating a tunnel vision towards ultimate victory.  It is easy to see how many major candidacies end up selling their souls to the Devil in the pursuit of political office.

I’m sure that my piddling race for a lower county government office pales in comparison to a county-wide, state-wide, or national race; but it is abundantly clear that even the smallest contest requires some form of analytical, administrative, number-crunching approach to first identifying the potential voters and then reaching out to the potential voters.  There is a list of voters and the task is to contact the people on that list.  It might be door-to-door cold calls; it might be media advertising; or it might be event management.  This is the campaign grind that no one told you about.  This is the part that in larger, more prominent races leads to the quest for campaign donations to fund a bigger and better voter outreach effort.  In a smaller and less auspicious race, it is the part that gets you behind on the chores of your normal life, dominates your personal calendar of activities, intrudes immensely on your family, jumps up on your back, and gains weight daily until Election Day.  After my pursuit of a minor political office, I have a newfound appreciation for the sacrifices made by candidates to run for office.  Not to say that the sacrifice is overtly noble or courageous.  After all, the candidate is the one who decided to run; no one forced them.  I’m simply saying that win or lose; every candidate who has made a reasonable effort to campaign has put in a whole lot of time and effort that the general voting public simply is not aware of.  The upside to this campaign requirement is the privilege of meeting voters in their homes, at events, and through correspondence in ways that would never have otherwise occurred.  There are so many wonderful people in our nation and in this high tech, high speed world that we all live and work in, the art of conversation and discussion has been largely lost.  A political campaign requires that this art be practiced, polished, and pursued.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Any effective political campaign requires a large dose of constant self-promotion that will be part and parcel of the overall effort.  It is really skating on thin ice when you and others constantly project yourself in the most positive fashion possible, overlooking the obvious flaws and defects that we all possess to varying degrees.  Having gone through this campaign, I can better understand how career politicians morph into the monstrous egotists that many of them have become.  At some point, if all you ever hear about yourself is the good and never the bad, you begin to believe that you are perhaps much better than you actually are.  Fortunately, I have good friends that do not hesitate to point out my stupid moments, loving family that accepts my idiot ways and loves me anyway, and a God who has given me a wonderful life with or without political office.  I fear that many of our elected officials in Washington and other centers of government have surrounded themselves with nothing but clueless disciples who cater to their every whim, deed, or opinion.  They live in isolated bubbles of self-adulation that may float around in an environment with other such bubbles; but never really mesh with those other bubbles in a practical, meaningful, or productive way. 

At the end of the day, my modest campaign for Magistrate has been a valuable lesson for me.  If I ever had a burning desire to seek elected office, then that desire has been quenched.  That box on the bucket list is checked.  I have a far greater appreciation for our political process and its ability to offer a candidacy opportunity to almost anyone; even a rogue Independent in a small Kentucky county.  I have a deeper understanding of exactly the cost that candidates pay for seeking office; costs that go far beyond the fiscal matters of a political campaign.  And most of all, I know that I will better understand in the future when I engage in a political discussion with someone, that their rationale for promoting a particular candidate over my choice of a particular candidate may not make sense to me; but it dang sure makes sense to them.  That is America.