Column: Presidential campaigning could use some tweaking

After turning on the television the other night to watch the news, Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw's replacement (otherwise known as Brian Williams) looked in high spirits as he boldly proclaimed, "for anyone who likes politics, these next couple of weeks will be must-watch TV."

Well, while I count myself to be among those sick and deranged members of society who actually do like politics, this primary season has certainly worn my patience thin and we don't even live in one of the key early primary states.

For most serious candidates, the campaign started in the spring of '07 (for some a lot earlier) and we the people have been subjected to non-stop barrages of political ads, sound bites, and photo-ops. I've gotten tired of turning on the news and seeing that while almost nothing has changed on the campaign trail, the first 15 minutes are still centered on the meaningless impact of some new poll results. The question for many voters no longer is, "Do I know the candidates?" but "Do I still want to know them?"

While I'm sure the candidates didn't get together in 2006 and decide that as a group they needed to incessantly subject America to their annoying bickering, the fact remains that they all participate. Since when did "candidate" become a full time job? Wait a second; don't Hillary, McCain, and Obama already work for us in the Senate?

This begs the question: do these candidates, or any politicians for that matter, spend more time doing real substantive work or on the campaign trail? Trick question because for them, campaigning is "real substantive work." Wouldn't it be nice if we could just say, "What are you doing in Iowa and Nevada? Get back to work in D.C. or you're fired."

Perhaps this never-ending campaign season is the reason that voter turnout in America is so poor. By the time November rolls around many people are either so disgusted by the whole process that they sit it out or are so numb by the deafening political roar that they don't even notice that the commotion is reaching a boiling point; they have just tuned it out. The primaries should be pushed back � way back. They should start sometime in early spring. March perhaps? Furthermore we should make a federal law forbidding official campaigning and fundraising of any kind until at least January. This whole two-year head start is ludicrous.

Another thing that bothers me is how much money the candidates raise, and ultimately throw away. The candidates from the two major parties have already raised nearly $500 million. I'm bad at math but even I know that's half a billion dollars. In Iowa, Mitt Romney spent $7 million on ads alone, which translate into nearly $60 on everyone who caucused for a republican there. All that money for a losing effort? The sort of money that is flying around this primary is unbelievable and when one thinks of all the good causes and charities that this money � which is obviously easily expendable � could have gone to, it's amazing! I propose that they should be required to spend a small portion on charitable causes � say 5 percent? That sounds reasonable and it might actually funnel some money into good causes unless political operatives do what they do best and find a loophole.

I realize that my "modest" improvements to the primaries will probably fall on deaf ears and that if anything, the campaign season will get longer, more expensive, and more annoying in years to come. But to paraphrase the Lorax, I speak for the electorate, for the electorate have no patience. Call me derisory or call me a visionary ahead of my time but in either case please, please help spare this nation another primary season in a mere four years. I am almost willing to endorse a Dick Cheney dictatorship to avoid a continuation � almost, but not yet. And so, with the Cheney option temporarily shelved, it is with great impatience that I await our next commander in chief.

Source:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/01/24/column__presidential_campaigning_could_use_some_tweaking