(people talking over each other)

– As the presidential primary season kicks off, it's time to decide. But how do you do that? Do you have a process for choosing your presidential candidate? I'm PJTV's Scott Ott joined now by Bill Whittle and Stephen Green with part one of a three-part Trifecta called, "How to Pick a President." In this episode, we look at policy issues. In the second, track record and character. And in our members-only part three, we'll consider a candidate's demeanor, performance skills. Now men, we're not endorsing anyone, but simply trying to help our viewers and, frankly, me to make a good investment with our one and only primary vote. Now, Stephen Green, and by the way, it's one and only because we're Republicans, but I think you knew that. Stephen Green– – I'm not registered. – [Scott] If you were to make a checklist (laughs), you can deal with that. If you were to make a checklist of policies that matter most to you, what's at the top when you step into that voting both? Which ones are deal-breakers and where will you bend? And do you even think about it this way? – Yes and no. For me, there's the short-term issue of the GOP establishment having to mend fences with the GOP base. If that doesn't happen, I think we're gonna get into this in the next segment or two, then it's more or less over for the GOP. We've been warning for years now that this party is in danger of going the way of the Whigs, the party that the Republican Party replaced in the 1850s and 1860, and it's in danger of having the exact same thing happen to it. That's the short-term goal. Long-term, there is only one thing that really matters and that's entitlement reform. It's gonna bankrupt us, period. We've got, depending on how you calculate it, either 60 trillion to 150 trillion in unfunded mandates, the money for which does not exist and will not exist. And so, entitlement reform is my number one long term issue. That said, policy isn't necessarily the way people pick their voters, so I'm gonna give you the VodkaPundit cheat-sheet on how to vote intelligently without being informed. First of all, vote no on all ballot issues. There might be one or two on there that you wanna vote for, but you don't actually have to educate yourself, just vote no. It's probably taxes and spending and then that's always a no. Vote no on retaining judges, unless you happen to know one. I've got Judge Kane here in Colorado Springs, I served on a very difficult jury with him a couple of years ago, and he handled a difficult case with such grace and class that he's got my retainer vote for as long as he wants that bench. But, vote no on judges just to keep the fear of God into them. If you live in a non-swing state, if your state is not up for grabs, if you're New York, if you're California, if you're Texas, vote for your favorite third party candidate. Don't let the establishment parties think they own your vote. So, do that and vote no on incumbents of any party unless they've really earned reelection. And I believe that, in the primary and the general election, it really takes a lot for an incumbent to earn my vote. I'm like Mr. Pink giving out a tip at the diner. So, there you have it. There's your cheat sheet for how to vote intelligently without actually being informed. – Well, Bill Whittle, is it enough for you to have ideological agreement on major issues with a candidate or do you need to evaluate whether he or she actually has the capacity to accomplish his policy goals? And how do you determine whether or not he can "git 'er done?" – I just vote for the tallest person with the best hair, frankly. (laughing) Pretty simple, really, that's why I like having everybody lined up on stage. I think they ought to rank them in order of attractiveness. Wow, there's a lot there, Scott. I think, look, there are some things in there that are, as you mentioned earlier, that are really critically important. Steve's point about cutting spending is important. I don't see anybody leading the charge to cut spending, frankly, and I think he's right. I think that's probably the biggest issue out there. Securing the borders are important, reestablishing the military budget and getting the military back into a fighting machine instead of a social engineering program is very high on my list. Getting rid of Obamacare and getting the free market into the healthcare business is very important because if the government controls your healthcare, they control your life and your vote. All of these things are critical issues for me, but you're right, the question is, you know, who can get things done? I know we're not talking about particular candidates that are currently in the race, but maybe I'll be allowed to talk about somebody who wasn't in the race. Something I like most about Scott Walker was that he actually got elected and then he actually got things done, turned it from a serious deficit to a surplus in one year. But given the people that are left in the field, we have, we all have to make a balanced decision upon who we like the best versus who we think can actually win. And this is, to me, the great kind of paradox and almost tragedy of this 2016 Republican field, there is out there, in all of them, the ideal GOP candidate. I mean, on the roster, if you could pick and choose and Frankenstein yourself a candidate, you would have the dream candidate. You would have the audacity to speak against political correctness, you'd have a constitutional love for the rule of law and restoration of the rule of law, you'd have people who were severely dedicated to auditing the Fed and getting the federal government's finances back into shape. You have people who are strong on immigration, you have people, you just have the whole deal. The problem is, is that this ideal candidate's spread out over seven, eight people and so we have to decide which one of these core values is top of the list for me and generally, kind of vote that way, I think. – And for the record, Bill Whittle has suggested doing such surgery numerous times and Reince Priebus has not returned his calls. (laughing) Well, when it comes to policy positions, there's rhetoric and there's reality and sometimes they meet, but it's hard to tell when they do. If you're evaluating politicians, you can read their books, watch their speeches, and check their voting records, but the first two are self-promotional and the last is muddy at best. A single piece of legislation often contains hundreds of issues and I'm reluctant to blackball a candidate because of his vote on a particular bill. And you can evaluate the political outsider's policy positions only by their words, how long they've been same thing, and whether they've contributed to causes attached to those policies. If you have a deal breaker issue or two, you might also want to consider the likelihood that the candidate can actually accomplish that which you despise. If not, you may, and if you like him otherwise, you may want to reconsider. In any case, the choice is rarely as black and white as partisans of each candidate make it seem. It's not always good versus evil, at least in the primary, at worst, it may be a battle between well-intentioned idealists and sketchy opportunists. My best advice, before choosing, pray for wisdom. For Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and the entire Trifecta crew at PJTV.com, I'm Scott Ott. (intense music)