A National Primary Election Day and the Dodging the Issues in Their Pants

Dear Mark: It is commonly stated that the Republican presidential candidate does not win the general election without carrying the state of Ohio. That being the case, it seems quite odd that when a primary actually reaches my state, the choice is fait accompli. With as much influence as our state has in the end game, there is little to say at its inception. Do you like the current system, or does a national primary election day seem in order? — Ohioan Who Wants a Real Say

Dear Ohioan: I feel your pain, as Ohio and Texas share the same March 6th primary date. Normally, that would be a bad position to be in, but this year's Republican race is shaping up to be highly competitive, and our states could have a tremendous impact on the outcome.

I am not thrilled with the current system because it gives states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida a disproportionate influence on who wins the nomination. But I'm not ready for a national primary election day, either. My proposal is to divide the country into four regions: West, Central, Northeast and Southeast. Hold one regional primary per month beginning in February and concluding in May. The region that holds the first primary would alternate each election on a rotating basis.

This format would streamline the process and empower more citizens, as well. It would lower election costs, as candidates would be able to focus on one area of the country at a time, as opposed to the current system where candidates spend more time crossing the country than an Anthony Weiner tweet.

Don't hold your breath for any major changes, though, as individual states are allowed by law to choose their nominee whenever and however they want.

Dear Mark: You Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites for piling onto Anthony Weiner and his Twitter problems.

Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was involved with a prostitute. Your party did nothing, and he remains in office today. Why don't you clean up your own house before telling us how to run ours? — Mad Dem in Duluth

Dear Mad: For your information, I believe Vitter should have resigned for his extramarital dalliances regardless of the political fallout for Republicans. The Weiner scandal is not merely a matter of cleaning up a Republican or Democratic house; it's a matter of cleaning up all of our political leaders in Washington.

I personally do not care which party an offender represents, and tweeting lewd pictures of your "package" to college girls, blackjack dealers and porn stars is wrong no matter what your constituency back home thinks. It's comical that the best defense for Weiner that you and pundits like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews can come up with is to site the lewd actions of other politicians such as Vitter. Defending bad behavior with more bad behavior rings hollow.

It's not only sad that Democrats want to keep people like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and now Anthony Weiner in office. It's pitiful that these politicians bereft of morals are then elevated to liberal hero status. The leaders of the United States should be held to a higher standard and should possess moral clarity in order to act on decisions that affect the entire world.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but is it too much to ask that our leaders focus on the issues facing our country instead of the issues in their pants?

Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM