HERE IS HOW AMERICANS WILL VOTE

I am still conflicted on my vote. McCain's choice of his inexperienced "heartbeat away" running mate really threw me. I am fascinated by the very thinly veiled spin from people like Lindsay Graham on her lack of serious qualifications for president to Republicans who are desperate to hold on to power to ordinary people who are still intoxicated from the spiked Kool-Aid. But in the final analysis, I don't think this stuff matters anyway.

Here is how Americans will vote:

Committed R's and D's will vote the Party line, without any need for justification.

R and D leaning people will likely vote for the R or D after picking a particular reason to vote for their guy or against the other guy, like he's too old, black, too much tax, Supreme Court Justices etc.

Independents will vote based on who they like, sort of a class president vote. Some will pick "a particular reason" to justify their vote. Even fewer will do a thorough analysis of the options.

I'm in the latter group. After all, a vote for president and his party is an act of giving others control of my life (and yours).

DEM’s Convention ‘08


What a lost opportunity! If this was a fight for the future of the country, the middle class, etc, the Dem’s are not even ready for a sparring partner. The most enthusiastic, crowd stirring speech was by Dennis Kucinich (and I’m not a fan of his). But if you weren’t watching C-Span, you didn’t see it. In fact the only performance worse than the convention was the media coverage … CNN, Fox, MSNBC endlessly dragging out the same tired, old moderators, commentators, pundits and panelists. “Is Hillary going to unite or not? Is Obama negative enough or not?”

Look, undoubtedly these people are under contracts … paid for their “analyses”. Not only do CNN, MSNBC, and Fox have to use them, but are they capable of being objective, when they are really getting paid as performers? Are they ever likely to say what they really think? These media organizations owe the public full disclosure on who the talking heads are on their payroll.

Lastly, I’d like to propose a definition of “negative campaigning”. For those in the mediocre media who think that voter dissatisfaction with presidential candidates who make personal attacks, spread vicious lies, or run negative ads is worthy of coverage, they might do well to remember that this conduct is part of our history and our culture, and it’s perfectly legal. “It’s the cover-up, stupid.” that will get you in trouble. Unlike other countries where opponents are jailed or killed, our campaigning process, while not lily-white, is essentially equally fair. It does not require that the “kids in the sandbox play nice-nice”.

Let’em go at it. I want to see the real candidate, not somebody spouting lines from a script. I want candidates to expose each other’s weaknesses, flaws, mistakes, and, yes, even sins. The office of POTUS has too much power to turn it over to someone with a Madison Avenue persona or an unsavory past. I want to know if a lovable cowboy has any depth, or if an egghead has any soul. I want someone with as much judgment and wisdom as experience…. And they aren’t the same thing. As long as nobody gets harmed or incarcerated, negativity should not be a factor any more than race, gender, religion, or age should. Let’s not judge them by what they are, but by who they are.