If there’s anything to be said about the members of our current congress and house of representatives is that there is to little hair!. Insert minds eye picture here...

A subject more or less deemed a matter of social conscience, we often forget that our founding fathers sported such long haired viral posturing at one time in our great nations history.

In a period when the evolution of mankind in America is concerned with the greater good of all who embody our vast nation, we un knowingly elect men and women for leadership who lack a persistent fire in their bellies, like that of our fore fathers. Teaming with hormones of virtue, the founding fathers of our constitution put forth this great nation. The "fashion" of their time happened to be longer hair, wigs etc. A clean and neat appearance on a longer haired politician meant that he was a gentleman of prestige and character. This stylish posture presented our early nations public with a vision of strength, courage and fortitude that is sadly lacking in today’s body politic.

A man or woman in 2008 running as a potential candidate for the highest office in the land, who does not meet the grooming standards, or visual acceptance of a prejudicial society, are often neglected in the election process. Most candidates are elected solely on their up tight mannequin-like appearance. A pitiful waste of brain power if you ask me. Past presidents who sported such testosterone lacking comb over's were the result of an awkward anal retentive time. Accept it and move on. The entire concept of up tight looks is way to inhibited for many voters tastes. What would Thomas Jefferson or George Washington say to such nervous high strung mistrust of appearance?. At the time of the revolution longer hair and wigs were not just a matter of fashion, but rather a statement of indubitable trust!.

A strong man or woman, who puts forth a firm argument and shows signs of leadership regardless of their perceived looks is the most reasonable choice. Should he or she honestly state their their positions with intelligent facts and meaningful dialogue, the masses may never pay attention to the “one red shoe" they may be wearing. A metaphor for ignoring something inconsequential in lieu of content of character. Would it really make a difference?. Should it really make a difference?. A red herring if you will, the issue of longer hair on a man or woman should not be a matter of judgment by those who pride their vote to elect leaders. Instead consideration should be based upon what positive traits and intelligence they project to all, as well as what they can do for the greater good of mankind. What skills and character a person with longer hair may possess should remain the only facts by which to be judged!.