That's not such a bad idea after all. I mean, who is more at fault following the last election? A decorated war hero; or a man who went AWOL from National guard service - yet many people believe Bush to be a better war leader than Kerry. Prior to being elected president, Bush had never bee outside the USA, yet he was deemed a better leader in foreign affairs than Kerry. The list goes on. It's not so much a reflection on the candidates as the voter. Parties put up candidates that have the best chance of being elected. If we, as voters, as so ignorant, unassuming, or stupid to weed out the trash, then that is OUR problem. Parties know that the voting public are stupid, which is why they'll elect mediocre candidates. It's the basic theory of supply and demand. If we don't expect much of our candidates, and will elect them anyhow, then Parties won't bother putting up more credible ones. Rather than point the finger at Bush, or Kerry et al, we should rather be asking the question of the people as to why we repeatedly and consistently vote for them.