[Hoot Gibson]

^^Like I said, there was a time when those who served this land, served with honor because they were men of honor. We as a people and a nation have certainly not shown any legitimate evidence of having evolved to some higher standard as Mr Obama would tell you.

Instead our candidates (put forth for the people by political parties) are openly supportive of the gay agenda, abortion, and high taxes which ensure that they will have enough money to socially terraform this land in the social justice vision. These party driven candidates are prone to lie, distort and otherwise deny the truth about our heritage and our values. The Dems especially have moved so quickly and violently left, that they have managed to effectively leave many of their own party behind. And thus those who at one time were true believing Democrats find themselves unwilling to adhere to a party platform that denies their conscience and their faith.

Likewise, the uber liberal/progressive academia are the known subverters of our youth. And judges being appointed to the court are known for legislating, regulating and otherwise effecting social policy from the bench.

So, while you fixate on demanding that we conform to political party status quo according to your understanding, the people of this land have shown this election cycle, that they are no longer willing to accept that they are to be dominated by will of a 'few' who have clearly left the path to espouse ideologies which run contrary to the common good. If I understand you correctly, we have only two choices, accept the party driven candidate put forward by pinch nosed self appointed political aristocracy the likes of Rich Lowery and neocon Bill Kristol. Or, simply allow the state to tell us who the candidates are to be.

While I agree the US Constitution should not be monkeyed around with the way lying liberal/progressives long to see, the Presidential nominating process probably does need some tweeking, given the reality that the Us is no longer a vast rural society largely separated from the workings of Washington, DC. The information age has erased any such separation and the voter, who BTW have been heavily courted and encouraged to vote in the Presidential nomination process. And that by the very Parties you say have the right to deny them the same privilege. I guess they need to make up their darn minds.

These are the workings of the Republic of which the framers envisioned and established. Allowing ourselves to be entrenched and restricted to party offerings may be an acceptable practice as long as they know they are accountable to the people. Call this an attitude adjustment courtesy of the voting public. The party bosses have been put on notice as have those who hold office.

You are free to work within a political party's framework to reform it in any way you see fit. You are even free to start your own party and devise any system that you deem appropriate to select your nominee. The nomination process is just fine the way it is.

Limits on political donations should be eliminated entirely because they restrict free speech and give too big of an advantage to incumbents and celebrity candidates, who do not have to spend money to gain name recognition.

I am a conservative. I believe in allowing states to run elections and allowing members of private concerns such as political parties to make their own rules. I have believed for many years that the quality of candidates that we end up with through an increasing number of primary elections has dropped sharply over the decades. Most great American presidents were not produced by a widespread primary process.