Hello friends, especially those from the Huckabee campaign!

NPR (everyone's favorite government funded liberal talk radio station) is sponsoring a "March Madness" type bracket competition for the potential runners in the 2012 GOP Primary.

If the last primary is any indication, it's never to early to start talking about this stuff (*rolls eyes*).

Still, just for fun, let's see if we can't get Huckabee (or at least a real conservative) into the finals.  You can find the bracket here:

LINK

Let us know how you voted in the comments section!

During the newsbreak I catch the following story:

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will vote as early as tomorrow on a $50 billion measure funding the Iraq war for four months, while also setting a goal of bringing U.S. troops home within a year.

Pelosi said the measure would provide four months of funding while also requiring that any U.S. troops remaining in the country focus on improving security rather than waging war.

``This is not a blank check for the president,'' Pelosi said.

The vote is the latest effort by congressional Democrats to force President George W. Bush to alter his policy on the war, which is in its fifth year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated he also will advance the stop-gap war spending measure, but didn't say when the Senate might act.

``I think the House is proceeding in the right direction by focusing on the failed strategy in Iraq,'' Reid told reporters.

Did the Democrats really just choose the Veteran's Day weekend to once again threaten our troops in Iraq with limited funding and a timetable for defeat?  Am I the only one to see the irony here?

And perhaps Mr. Reid hasn't ventured outside the NY Times in awhile, but our "failed strategy" in Iraq is yielding tremendous victories.  Violence is down significantly and many of the tribal leaders are starting to ally themselves with the US, realizing that while our soldiers are giving out candy to their children, the Al-Qaeda invaders are blowing them up.  And rest assured, I used the language "Al-Qaeda invaders" on purpose.  This is not a civil war.  It is a war between the US (surrogate for Western culture in general since the rest of Western culture, sans a few, seems to want to sit this one out) and Islamofascist extremists from across the world.  The battlefield happens to be Iraq, but it is not a "civil war".

I digress. Poor Nancy choosing Veteran's Day to dis the troops out of needed resources and morale.  Aren't dems in power great? *sarcasm* 

There are nine candidates on stage.  Question one should begin with candidate one, and then each candidate down the line gets the same question and the same time to answer.  Time should be enforced by simply turning off the microphone when the candidates time has elapsed.  Question two then starts with candidate two and goes down the line, ending with candidate one.  After nine questions, each candidate has now been able to answer first and last, and has each received the same amount of time.  Do the math on how long the forum is to determine the length each candidate gets.  This is fair, this is right, this needs to happen NOW. 

Remove the bias!!!!!

About a month ago I commented on a desire to see the primary elections changed into a point total contest where each voter was allowed to vote for their top three candidates.  Points would be assigned based on the ranking of candidates a particular voter chooses.  For example, a first place vote would generate three points, second place two, and third place one.  The points would be added and the victor declared. 

It is my feeling that the results of such a contest would yield a much more accurate portrayal of the views of the voters while eliminating the oft heard self defeating argument “I’d vote for him, but he won’t win”.  This way, you could actually vote for your favorite candidate, while assuaging your guilt by voting for your buddy’s favorite as well.  There would be no excuse for not voting the way you really feel.

Doing so would also eliminate the costly and troublesome necessity for runoff elections because there would be a clear winner.  A tie would be broken by whoever received the most first place votes, if still tie, the most second place votes, etc.  It also eliminates the possibility of plurality victories in instances where there is no runoff under law.  In my opinion plurality victories are too amenable to a rather disenfranchised electorate.

I received some positive comments on that proposal and decided to be a little bolder in another idea for confronting both voter apathy and ignorance.  The idea struck me after Governor Huckabee requested that Senator Thompson’s request for a debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style be accepted.

Why stop with just one debate?  Why just two candidates? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you...  (Drum roll please)

American Ideals

No, not American Idol, the Fox TV favorite.  American Ideals, the first ever televised and real time bracket driven Lincoln-Douglas debates decided immediately by the American people, with single elimination.

Allow me to back up for a moment.  It is sad that we live in a day and age where what Brittany Spears looked like last night generates more press coverage and internet hits than the newest Clinton scandal involving Chinese money laundering and Norman Hsu.  This is the American Idol generation, after all.  It’s flash, flare, drama, and popularity contests that grab the attention of the American people, so let’s cater a little bit to the fanfare requirements of the average US citizen and create a little bit of excitement for real politics at the same time.  Maybe someone will actually learn something in the process.

We start by setting up the top eight candidates into two four candidate brackets.  For the sake of argument, let’s say we seed the candidates according to current polls.  We’d have Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul.  (Ok, I put Paul in instead of Brownback because, lets face it, they’re polling about the same and I didn’t want to hear from all the whiny Paul supporters for leaving him out…and besides, I need an even number.)

Our first rounds would be Guiliani vs. Paul and Thompson vs. Hunter in bracket A, Romney vs. Tancredo and McCain vs. Huckabee in bracket B.  The winners of each contest would face the other winner from their bracket, and then each of the bracket champions would face each other in the final round.

So, we advertise it.  We hype it up.  We make it the biggest deal ever on American Television!  Each of the seven contests would be an hour long episode in which the candidates engage in a real debate.  Something of substance for a change!  And sure, we’d throw in the obligatory just for fun final 10 minutes.  I mean, it can’t be all serious or no one would tune in.  We could have the candidates show off a talent, maybe fight with those cool pugil sticks from American Gladiators.  I don’t know; something that makes must see TV.

At the conclusion of each episode, we have the Fox phone lines on standby for audience voting.  The winner is announced the following episode.

Now, obviously a lot of the details still need to be worked out.  This wouldn’t count as the actual election, but something needs to be offered to encourage participation.  Perhaps with all the advertising money coming in, the winning candidate could receive a million dollars for their campaign. (To hell with campaign finance reform!)

I’d love to see some of the different match-ups created here.  Maybe the brackets could just be randomly generated.  Maybe we could mix the Democrat and Republican candidates and create a larger bracket.  I’m just having fun brainstorming. 

More discourse is sorely needed in American Politics.  I’m willing to go as far fetched as possible to help that happen.