With the latest surge of TEA Party activism combined with an over-all nationwide jerk towards the right, names of TEA Party candidates, third party "conservative" candidates, and candidates that proudly yell from the highest roof top that they are not a part of the "establishment" (whatever the Hell that means) are coming out of the wood work. Lets get this straight right off the bat since I know far too many people don't read past the first paragraph or two of these posts before writing mindless, driveling remarks of a derogatory nature in the comment section: I'm not saying these qualities make a BAD candidate.

ALL that I am saying is that I certainly hope that people thoroughly vet and examine these candidates before buying every cock and bull thing that pours out of their mouths. It takes a Hell of a lot more than good rhetoric and convenient timing to make person a good conservative candidate. Sure, the rhetoric at this time may make for a very winnable candidate, but that does not mean that the person is right for the job.

Depending on the position that the candidate is running for (lets use, for the sake of this post, a Senate seat) there are a lot questions that should be asked about that individual. What, exactly, is this persons qualifications? Would the seat be better filled by a person that is, on a scale of 1-10 regarding "conservativeness", a 10 with no experience what-so-ever, or a person that is a 7 but knows the ins and outs of politics and perhaps was a high ranking member of the military? Me, personally? I would easily vote for the latter of these two candidates.

The same, obviously, goes for presidential candidates. Heck, George W. Bush is a prime example of a person who won the primary because he ran a great campaign (with the assistance of Karl Rove) and smeared the opposing candidates so much (with the assistance of the Evangelical community) that he won the primary and went on to beat Gore. Not that I thought that Bush was a bad President. I have my good things to say right along with the bad things (and usually my arguments for Bush are others' arguments against him, but that's besides the point) however I feel there were probably others better suited for the position. But, because of timing and good rhetoric (and EXCELLENT campaigning) he became the face of the Republican party for 8 years.

Another thing that I hope everybody thinks about is relativity. No, you don't have to be Einstein to get this (budda cha!), you only have to have more than two brain cells rubbing together and can't be a mindless ideologue who screams one word slogans over and over again because you don't have any substance in your arguments. However, I've fallen off of my beaten path for a moment (or rather, down a rabbit hole), my point regarding relativity is whether or not that candidates views are relevant to that position. For example, a person running for city council doesn't need to give a crap one way or another about the Iraq war. It's irrelevant. Like wise for abortion, the national debt, etc.

Many are probably thinking: "well, duh!" However, too many are probably either seething because they support a candidate that has the right rhetoric but lacks the qualifications or are wiping the drool from their chin and saying, "Ohhh...I get it!"  

*Sigh*

That's why I'm here. To put that little touch of common sense, a dash of reality, a pinch of sarcasm, and a whole pound of awesomeness in each and every day of your life.