Blog:Whatever Happened to 'Real' Primaries?

What happened to free elections in America now that Romney has become the likeable candidate of the republicans in 2012?   Since I cast my first vote in the 1964 presidential elections more than 45 years ago, much has changed in presidential politics and the change has not been for the better. I remember the primaries of past years when candidates of both parties would flock the airwaves giving the American people the opportunity to hear the different points of views
concerning the pressing issues of the day. Both, Republicans and Democrats
would parade their candidates throughout the primary season up to their
respective conventions where the nominee of each party would emerge to
run for the chance to represent the American people for the next four years.

Such was the 1976 presidential elections when Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination throughout the primaries up to the last days of the Republican convention when Gerald Ford became the nominee.

How things change in politics. Issues have given way to politics of
destruction. Today, as it has been since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992,
the playing field for presidential candidates has shrunk to the point that even
before the primary season begins the establishment elite of both parties
annoints their choice.

And, as often turns out, that person will win the nomination and sometimes even
become the president, as was the case with George W. Bush in 2000 and Obama
in 2008. It is no different today where even before the Iowa’s caucus; Romney
emerged as the choice of the republicans even though only a small number of
people voiced their opinion about a candidate. Is that what free elections are
all about?  

This year, once again the American people did not have a choice because we are, days from the republican convention and Romney has emerged as the nominee of the Republican party.  In other words, even before the people spoke,
 the powers that be told us that Romney should be the candidate. I believe
the president of the United States should represent all the people not just the
few.  

So the question that must be asked again and again is: were George W. Bush in 2000 or Barak Obama in 2008 the best-qualified persons to run this country in their respective times? Better still, is Romney the best qualified person in 2012 to run this great nation that under the two previous presidents we have seen this country in decline with an economic malaise and an ultra-liberal social agenda that will continue to plague this nation for many years to come?

Looking at what happened in the last four years of the Bush’s presidency and what has happened in the last four years of the Obama’s administration, the logical
answer to that question is, "No." I did not vote for Mr. Obama in
2008 for two simple reasons one, I believed he was too liberal for this country
and secondly, I was a registered republican. In the past four years, Mr. Obama
did not let me down, he was the liberal that I envision and on the social
agenda, all of his policies have been against everything I believe and what our
forefathers believed more than 200 years ago.

So my choice for president in 2012 is again limited at best because I am very
skeptical about a Romney presidency and much less interested in another four
years of an Obama’s presidency. Just as in 2004 and 2008, this year's prospects
of free and infringed elections have become as dim as ever.

A president will be chosen even before I go to the polls in Pennsylvania to cast my so called “free” vote. I will say goodbye to free elections again because in the final
analysis, my vote will not even count. This is what presidential elections have
become - power and freedom for the few, impotence and ineffectiveness for the
rest of us.