Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say ---yet again

Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news.  On the upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted. 

The not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will --- yet again --- have virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.

In other words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates. 

Likewise, an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire --- which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an “r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the lobsta’.

And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the coronation.

Only in America.

Where does that leave the rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.

So why does the nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and is there a better way?  Lack of political courage, probably not, and resoundingly yes.

                                                              *****

Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.

But having the first and last word in the election process is insane.  No state should hold that much power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all negative:

-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.

-That resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.

- The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.

With the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance, which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted, nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation suffers.

What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?

The present rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch with Americans’ varied interests --- and being forced to take positions on those issues ---are increasingly responsive only to voters in those three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be damned.

                                                             *****

The system is the way it is because the Establishments of both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and (relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders and give it to ---God forbid --- the people. And the more quickly a nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary season, with more time to raise cash for November. 

But since the interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to retain the status quo.

It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.

Frontrunners are almost always part of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular constituency ---such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the ethanol corn vote in Iowa.

Admittedly, it is an extremely difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation --- and the Party hierarchy --- why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so flawed.  In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.  And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning the nomination.  But he didn’t.

And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani skipped all three states to first compete in Florida.  Had he actually had a competent campaign and resonating message --- including strongly advocating why the system was unfair --- the outcome might have been different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was in significant debt). But he didn’t.

So can it change?  Tough to say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it is volatile, angry and unpredictable.

To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:

1) Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states, and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts the voting.  That would offer enough of a variation that local or even regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.

2) Perhaps better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising.  But campaign costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset the increased costs of running a larger campaign.

                                                           *****

Switching to a new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw their hat into the ring --- given that many now stay out because they feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has been denied to them for far too long.

Given the state of America, due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to choose our leader.

We could do no worse.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Up until the 1930's, the majority of blacks were Republican, proud to be in the Party of Lincoln.  The song that would become the national anthem of the NAACP, Lift Every Voice and Sing, was written by a black Republican in 1900 to celebrate President Lincoln's birthday.  Nine years later, on Lincoln's 100-year birthday, the NAACP was formed, with a number of founders being white Republicans.

Fast forward to the 2000 presidential election.

George W. Bush captured a mere eight percent of the black vote.  Eight percent!

Questions:

A) How did that happen?

B) More important, how can the GOP rekindle the relationship with one of its most natural constituencies?

Answers:

A) Incompetence, a lack of foresight, political expediency---and FDR's New Deal.

B) Bold, aggressive leadership that ignores political correctness. This means going for the jugular of all who label real solutions “racist" or "bigoted”.

Answer B, applicable to solving most of our problems, is simple, just not easy.

So has the GOP made progress? Unequivocally, the answer is No.

It’s been ages since the Party ran a presidential candidate who could heal the wounds and be a uniter, and 2012 looks to be more of the same.

For evidence, look at what happened during the last campaign. The four GOP frontrunners --- McCain, Romney, Thompson and Giuliani --- deliberately skipped an important debate on race relations, citing lame excuses for being no-shows.

Truth is, they refused to attend for a simple reason. They looked at how many blacks vote Republican, and, figuring they would get pummeled by the primarily black audience (it was held at historically black Morgan State University), stayed away. 

After that act of cowardice, “Freindly Fire” rained fire on those Republicans:

“Any Republican who believes the status quo is acceptable---and a deliberate absence at such an event makes that their position--- doesn't deserve to lead our nation.  Running for President should not just be about cozy fund raisers and scripted speeches to friendly audiences.  It must be about tackling the most pressing issues, even if it means walking into the lion's den, standing your ground, and outlining your vision for success.”

John McCain epitomized the status quo, and, not coincidentally, got crushed in the election.

The Republicans are in desperate need of a leader willing to stand up and embrace Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., someone who can credibly remind blacks about their former alliance with the GOP.  But most of all, a leader who can explain to blacks that they are still Republican in their values, and to show them the way home.

Dr. King espoused Republican ideals more eloquently than most.  Look at the words in his most famous statement: “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.  Is there anything more Republican than that?  True Republicans strive to live in a color-blind society, where people are judged by their deeds, not their skin pigment.

Ironically, many GOP leaders who advocate merit over skin color fail to practice what they preach.  Courted for their “blackness,” Michael Steele was chosen to head the Republican National Committee, and Lynn Swann to run for governor of Pennsylvania in 2006. Both men were inherently unqualified for those respective positions, and both were soundly, and embarrassingly, rejected.  It is clear the Republicans learned nothing from Dr. King.

A guiding principle of the GOP is personal responsibility, and no one epitomized that more than Dr. King. He never ran from the law during a protest, nor did he label his arrests and imprisonment as persecution. Unlike so many leaders in both political Parties, he never engaged in the blame game.

In fact, it was the opposite --- Dr. King never complained about the consequences of his actions. Knowing the high risks, he took full responsibility for those actions, innately understanding that the only way to achieve freedom was to work within the American system, changing it from the inside by winning the hearts and minds of the American people.

Most blacks find themselves in the same position as rank-and-file union members.  Both share the core beliefs of the Republican Party, but suffer because their leaders sold them out long ago in favor of personal agendas and Democratic sweetheart deals--- contrary to the interests of those they represent.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the CBS executive involved in Don Imus' firing, congressional leaders...the list is long.  Yet God forbid a black person speaks truthfully on sacred-cow “black” issues! That just isn’t permitted, so when it rarely occurs, personal insults and vicious attacks immediately follow.  Look at the heat Bill Cosby took when he scolded the black community for using excuses and not improving themselves through personal responsibility.  He was demonized by black “leaders” nationwide.

But he was right.

Who is most affected by violent crime?  Who is most impacted by outrageous taxes and ever-increasing public transportation fees?  Who, more than anyone, strives for a solid family unit, knowing the catastrophic results of children growing up without a father?  As a group, who opposes same-sex marriages more than any other?  And who better understands the reality that many of our failed public schools, especially those in the inner city, have become literal battle zones—-and that the only way to achieve a quality education, and with it one's dreams, is through parental choice in education? 

Black Americans.

Bold leadership isn't going to garner the Republicans a huge vote swing in the next election---you don't reverse eighty years of thinking overnight.  But if the GOP does the right thing, for the right reasons, the votes will follow.

And on the race relations issue, doing the right thing is as simple as black and white.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newsApapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it