No one dared do it to George Washington. Old George, the biggest (literally), baddest (figuratively) politician in American history would have very likely walked up to the offending writer or politician and, without a word, run him through with his sword and, with the same calm he showed in facing cannon fire, walked away. Or, his offender would have gone to the wormy end of Alexander Hamilton at the hands of Aaron Burr. And, since he was who he was, would have very likely gotten away with it. You simply didn’t tug on George’s cape or spit into the wind. It would not have been prudent nor safe.

Since the first two Presidential coronations - they could hardly be called "campaigns" as G.W. was elected unanimously (think about it: he is the only man to receive every electoral vote both times he ran) both times - the velvet gloves of 1789 and 1792 have been replaced by spiked chain maille and Presidential campaigns have been, for the most part, slugfests with the real intention of slandering, defaming, libeling - in brief, ruining - one’s opponent. The knock-down, drag-out Wrestlemania of national politics is a carnival of dirty tricks and low-road ethics. It has become a high-stakes circus with no holds barred and every man for himself. Which is to say, buncombe.

The tragedy, as far as it goes, is that Americans continue to love a good fight, fair or not. Oh, we may wring our hands and, in polite conversation, profess that we are "tired of all the mud-slinging" or "we hope the election this year is dignified" or blah blah blah. I call "bullshit!" We, of the Boobus americanus species, love competition. Which is to say, we enjoy a good fight. Which is to say, dirty politics tickles our fancy as much or more as a drunken street brawl, dog fight or domestic disturbance. It makes sense to the simple mind to see someone who seeks to hold this nation’s highest office to be drug through a healthy length of mud, mire and guano before he is elected. We seem to think that it toughens them up, that old "trial by fire" tradition. A President who takes the oath of office needs to have a black eye, the seat of his pants ripped out and a little blood on his shirt for us to believe he has rightfully earned the job.

To trace the history of the underhanded, sleazy, backstabbing of Presidential politics would be rollicking fun and something I would, strange bird that I am, relish undertaking. It is has been partially done in Attack Politics: Negativity in Presidential Campaigns Since 1960 by Buell and Sigelman but they, restricting their focus to the last half-century, neglected such classic battles as Jefferson v. Adams (remember Sally Hemmings?), Andrew Jackson v. John Quincy Adams (think "the corrupt bargain") and Lincoln v. Douglas (the rancor brought about the Civil War). Even when people who knew their letters read, they only got what the newspapers wanted them to read and 99% of that was what the editors thought of the candidates and 100% of that was lies, innuendo and partisan bunk.

When the 20^th Century rolled around and the mass media was cranking up, the bloodletting became even more preposterous. The Teddy Roosevelt v. Howard Taft v. Woodrow Wilson three-way of 1912 kicked off a whole new level of vitriolic rhetoric. I, personally, wish I had been around for that - in a perverse sort of way. Interestingly, in the aforementioned book on the cockfighting since 1960, the authors paint lovable, cuddly JFK as one of the most viscous and underhanded campaigners of the last half-century. Who would have thunk it? Now, LBJ surely was about as dirty as they come; of that, there can be little doubt. Even nerdy, incompetent and thoroughly-overmatched Jimmy Carter tried some classic Southern dirty tricks against Reagan in 1980 but, like his Presidency, it was a total failure.

More recently, we can revert back to the absolutely irrelevant stink bombs thrown by the winners which made the recipient unelectable for the Great Mob that is the common man:

- George H.W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis: Willie Horton

- William Jefferson Clinton v. George H.W. Bush: Ross Perot + "read my lips: no new taxes!"

- George W. Bush v. Al Gore: "hanging chad"

- Ditto v. John Kerry: Swift Boat Veterans

Folks, if you don’t love this sort of tragicomedy, you are either dead or a pretty darn near it. The things that end up deciding Presidential elections are a litany of irrelevancies, blind party loyalty, dredged up ancient history repackaged to appear to be current events, smokescreens and plain distortions of facts that would make even old-school operatives in Mayor Dailey’s Chicago Machine if not blush at least look for a subpoena.

The point is simply this: Americans, because they are either too lazy (possible) or too stupid (plausible) to think for themselves, too gullible to actually check the validity of the garbage they are fed as legitimate from the self-interested media or simply too brainwashed to see anything beyond the party pin they wear on their chest, vote for whomever they are told to vote for. They may get their orders from the friend at work whose judgement they have long trusted in such pressing matters as "Which donuts are better: Dunkin’ Donuts or Krispy Kream"" or "Which Starbucks branch offers the best Latte?" The youth may follow the sage advice of their favorite rock/rap stars or the Tinseltown actors-turned-activist whose resume would read high-school dropout, long-term drug addict and "once auditioned for role as fried chicken restaurant mascot". The video-obsessed might rely on the loud-mouthed national pundit whose weekly (nightly?) screeching has conclusively proven that voting preferences can actually be swayed by the shear volume of speech regardless of its logic or intellectual content. Or, as is all too often the case, they may be told how to vote by their labor union betters. Whatever the case may be, I am firmly convinced that the idiots that disguise themselves as American voters every fourth November never rely on their own wits to decide their vote. And, considering the contents of the brain pans I am interact with on a daily basis, that is not entirely a bad thing. It is merely sad.

The American voter cum mindless zombie also votes along the lines of group allegiance. The loyalty may be rooted in archaic mutual back-scratching that no longer exists, but old habits die hard in The Republic. Unions vote Democratic. White-collar professionals (except lawyers) vote Republican. Blacks vote Democratic; red necks, cowboys, policemen, most firemen and almost all military men vote Republican. Ivory tower intellectuals and Federal bureaucrats vote Democratic; from my own polling data, bartenders and heavy drinkers vote Republican. Asian Americans vote Democratic; Hispanics vote - plus or minus a few percentage points - almost down the middle. The working poor and the Hollywood gliteratti (actually, not such a strange nexus since most actors are trailer park escapees, sociopaths and high-school dropouts who just happen to have an interesting face - talent optional; see Sean Penn) lean heavily toward the Democratic Party; Christians (the benign and the fanatical), the upper-middle class and the rich lean heavily for the GOP.

How can one make such broad, sweeping and indisputably true generalizations? I refer back to my main point: Americans do not think for themselves and, like lemmings (or salmon), do what they are told or, when not directly instructed, do what they have usually done. The halcyon days of American individualism are dead, buried and pretty damned smelly at this late date. We, the unkempt mob, have always been and remain followers, joiners and blindly-obedient lever-pullers. It is what we are most comfortable with, probably because it requires the least thought. And introspection, exploration of the facts and weighing the issues has never been our strong suit.

How else does one explain the recent choices not just as candidates but actually elected President of the United States? Where, oh, where! have the great leaders gone? Why are were constantly choosing between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum? I cannot believe that in just 1988, as one snapshot, the best we could come up with among this nations leaders was a life-long silver-spooner and Texas oil millionaire and a Massachusetts version of Zorba the Greek? Were there no better men to lead a nation with such a remarkable history of greatness.

As we kick off the Convention season this week, it is time for those citizens who still claim to have a active cerebrum to start asking themselves some hard questions. First, is this the best that American can offer up, a crotchety septuagenarian with a notable history but a all the signs of a shaky future or a prototypical demigod whose credentials are so bad, which is to say nonexistent, the fawning, slobbering and adoring press are writing essay after essay about why experience is not important. In one of the most amusing, David Axelrod, Obama's political strategist, suggested that the primaries themselves suffice for more (cough, cough) formal definitions of "experience". He was quoted as saying: "Campaigns themselves are a gauntlet in which you get tested," he says. "People get to see how you handle pressure and how you react to complicated questions. It's an imperfect and sometimes maddening system, but at the end of the day it works, because you have to be tough and smart and skilled to survive that process." Translation: experience is a nebulous thing and doesn’t matter when picking a President.

Well, Sparky, that’s certainly one way of putting a shine on a cow pile.

People, I say this: Experience is important. Age is an issue. Parentage, race, religion (not to say just how nuts your preacher may or may not be), spouses’ profession or where they got their money, whether they celebrate with a "fist bump" or a high-five, and the other shit bombs that are being hurled out as distractions from both sides does not matter. But, trust me, these are what the booboisie will be made to focus on (not that they will mind since such matters make for great theater) over the next 3 months. And the beat goes on.

As the flack starts to fly this week and each candidate, in turn, is called everything but a Child of God, try something new: engage your brain and try to see through all the twaddle. For even more family fun, try to imagine who the useless diversions around non-issues really benefit and what their purposes really are. Trust me: they are not in the interest in the "full disclosure of the facts". The real issues of this campaign are clear enough even for a crossing guard or a city councilman to understand. To wit, it’s the economy, stupid! Followed, in close order, by national security, the educational crisis of our children, immigration and America’s competitiveness in the global market. Most everything else are simply dunghills erected to inflame the passions of those controlled by their passions and their prejudices and to obscure and distract the notoriously ADD-afflicted American voter. Same-sex marriage? Who gives a rat’s derriere? Off-shore drilling for oil? That train has already left the station. Iran, North Korea and Hugo Chavez? Hands off and let them self-destruct or, in North Korea’s case, simply starve themselves. Tribal genocide in Africa? Sorry, but that is not an American problem and if the U.N. or the E.U. aren’t intervening, neither should we. (Nota bene: It is not a legacy of slavery; not now, not ever!)

At least for the next 3 months, take your Ritalin as prescribed (or, if you are really lucky, your Adderall) and, for heaven’s sake, try to focus. The election of 2008 is one of those infrequent but crucial times when who we elect for President will actually have a monumental effect on the future of this nation for decades to come. And, since it is kind of important, passions, prejudice and allegiances have no place in our choice for leadership. Cold, hard logic and dispassionate analysis of the facts are essential.

From my lips to God’s ears.