I voted in my first presidential election in 1972 -- Richard Nixon against George McGovern.
It was the lesser of two evils, or so I thought. I thought McGovern was a little too liberal for me, so I voted for Nixon with some misgivings. For years I thought "if the Democrats had just given me someone else besides McGovern to vote for 'Tricky Dick' wouldn't have been re-elected."
In retrospect after reading a book about McGovern, he would have been a better choice.
Choices -- we have to make them when it comes to selecting a president. Some are better than others, but we have choices. Like the time I voted Libertarian because I didn't like Al Gore nor George W. Bush.
Which brings me to this year's crop of candidates. The candidates we are voting for this year are the worst that I can ever remember. None of them are worth voting for on either side of the aisle. I repeat: None -- not one.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed me up recently on CBS' "Face the Nation." Gates offers a unique perspective because he served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and President Barak Obama.
He said this about the candidates: He isn't particularly impressed with the emerging 2016 field despite a wealth of choices, especially on the GOP side.
"I haven't been particularly impressed, frankly, by anybody at this point on either side of the aisle," Gates said.
He also said most of the candidates "have no experience in foreign policy."
By contrast, Gates said, how he admired all three aforementioned presidents because they were all decisive leaders who didn't second-guess their decisions.
Here's my thoughts on the candidates:
REPUBLICANS
There are many in this country who say that President Obama didn't have enough experience to be president. I don't see an abundance of experience from any of the top current candidates. Former Gov. Jeb Bush, Govs. John Kasich and Chris Christie probably have the most political experience in the group, but lag way behind. And I'd take any of them over the front runners of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Here's my problem with Trump and Cruz. They are demagogues. A demagogue, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is a leader who obtains power by appealing to the emotions and prejudices of the populace. For us old-timers, think Sen. Joe McCarthy of communist witch hunt fame, who was chastised by Joseph N. Welch, an attorney representing the U.S. Army, with the famous quote -- "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
I feel that way about both Trump and Cruz.
n DONALD TRUMP -- Being a businessman doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be able to translate that experience into the ability of "herding a bunch of cats."
Talk's cheap when his immigration policy is to roundup 11 million people and send them home without wreaking havoc on the economy or telling another country that they are going to build a wall to keep people in their country.
I find his ability to bully and impugn a person's character to be very offensive, especially when no one can really tell what he stands what for. That's not policy, that's talk.
The last person to really campaign on "Trust Me" was Jimmy Carter, who was a nice guy and a not-so-great president. And if Trump can't handle questions from Fox's Megyn Kelly how is he going to handle crucial discussions with world leaders. Does he have a cut-and-run policy?
I also can't believe his four bankruptcies and his affair during his first marriage haven't been a topic of any discussion.
n TED CRUZ -- See the above without the bankruptcies and affairs. He is closer to McCarthy than Trump is.
n MARCO RUBIO -- See Martin O'Malley in the paragraph below. Also he doesn't have the skills yet.
DEMOCRATS
n HILLARY CLINTON -- She's blown the race, again, letting Sen. Bernie Sanders pull up even with her. I find her candidacy has been very lackadaisical up to this point, like she was preordained to be the Democratic candidate.
While the Benghazi probes by the GOP have been shown to be politically motivated, I find it appalling that as Secretary of State she used a private email server without enough security. While she may or may not have had classified information on it, one would think that if you plan on running for president that one would try to be a little smarter than that.
She is probably the most qualified, but I think she faces an uphill challenge with a lackluster performance and her last name.
n BERNIE SANDERS -- He's a proclaimed socialist and I think that could be a problem in the general election. That's in spite of the fact that the students at Western Illinois University picked him as the next president in their straw poll. And they have been successful since 1975 with their picks. I also worry about his age, 74, and the pressures of the presidency -- but Clinton and Donald Trump are 68 and 69, respectively, and all will be a year older by the time they take office in January. Looking at the toll the presidency takes (just look at presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama) and you have to wonder how Bernie will hold up.
n MARTIN O'MALLEY -- A good vice presidential candidate or possible president the next go-round. He's not ready yet.
• • •
Tom Throne is the former managing editor of The Weekly Vista.
Editorial on 02/03/2016