Let get this out of the way, I live in the often embarrassed state of Florida and work in the media. What’s more, I am a registered Democrat working at a conservative radio station. I routinely rail against the federal government running up our debt, yet my family gladly spent the “stimulus” check to pay several bills we were behind on. On top of all of that, I am famous for leaving major decisions in my life up to the flip of a quarter because otherwise I would just debate the merits of both sides of a decision forever.
Is it because I am the personification of a Libra and I like to balance everything out by seeing both sides of an argument? Am I just annoyingly indecisive? Or could it be my teenage addiction to masturbation now manifests itself “mentally” now? Do I use quotation marks around words to often?
All good questions…
With all of those questions out there and no answers offered, let’s move on to one more…this is the latest in a political race I haven’t committed to voting for a certain candidate, and if I can’t decide by November 4th, should I flip a quarter to decide or just not vote?
Living in Florida I’ve seen first hand how each vote can count, or at least should be counted, depending on how you look at it. I’m sure many of you think flipping a quarter for an important decision is asinine. Must be nice to be so damn decisive.
I’ve used the quarter to decide hundreds of decisions in my life, from whether to get wings or a hamburger all the way to should I quit my job, and it’s treated me well so far. Besides, it’s best out of three, even I can admit that doing it on just one flip is silliness.
As a registered Democrat, my gut wants to go for Barrack Obama, I just wish the “fantastic speaker” would shut up at times. Off script he is prone to say some of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard and make me question his thin resume even more. Do I want my next president to be a guy that actually defends his qualifications when compared to Sarah Palin’s by saying the running of his multi-million dollar presidential campaign is in itself the experience that qualifies him? So, running for president makes you qualified to be president? Then why the hell aren’t we voting for Nader? He’s been running since I was in middle school.
I don’t care what side of the abortion debate you come down on, I want a president with the common sense to not spit this sentence, “If one of my daughters makes a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby!” Seriously? You thought that wouldn’t leave a bad taste in the mouths of just about anybody listening? Throw in the “that’s above my paygrade” answer when he didn’t want to be pinned down to when a baby has earned the right to be protected (you’re running for the biggest job in the country Barack, say you believe this or that if you want avoid acting like you are all knowing, but don’t cop the above my paygrade excuse), and you have enough to make you have to wonder.
On the other side, as a lifelong Dem, I’ve always liked John Mccain. I buy into the “Maverick” tag for him. Unfortunately the true Maverick wouldn’t have picked Palin to be his Goose. Yes it woke up a Republican base that would’ve held their nose and voted for him, but not much else. Now many Republicans seem to embrace the idea of Mccain not living out his term and thus giving us President Palin. My problem with the choice isn’t an indictment of her or her experience, which sadly I do think is on par with Obama’s. My problem with the choice is that it shows he’s willing to give in to the base.
Until he showed that his backbone has softened more than his mom’s, my only problem with him was his insistance to “finish the war” in Iraq. I will admit there was a time I was on board with the decision to invade Iraq. Working at a conservative radio station we were conveniently spoon fed info from connections in the White House that all showed Saddam needed to go. These sources also swore up and down we would be greeted as liberators and welcomed with open arms. Needless to say I feel more used than Roseanne was by Tom Arnold.
Is it realistic to hope for a true middle of the road candidate? A guy that will encourage personal responsibility and not encourage people to look to the government to join their family? Someone that will realize completely eliminating regulation has led to our current economic disaster and the SNL scandal of the late ’80’s? A guy that is willing to sometimes willing to say, I thought this was a good idea then (see: war, Iraq), but now I see this is a bigger mess than it’s worth.
I dream of a candidate that I know thinks for himself, even if I disagree with them at times, but not one that will let the money wing of their party tell them what to do. I want someone with a little more experience than just running for president.
I used to be staunchly pro-choice and anti-death penalty. I’ve switched on both of those now, so I won’t hold against a politician if they say they’ve changed their mind on a subject, just convince me you really mean it and that the change isn’t because you know it will your chances at winning.
Since neither of these guys are what I am hoping for, do I just pick the lesser evil? Even then it’s a tough decision. Thousands more will die in the sands of Iraq if Mcaain wins. Worse yet, whenever we do leave the sandbox, nothing will have changed.
With Obama we will have a guy that really is a wild card in the White House. It is likely the role of the government in our lives will grow. Within reason that isn’t a horrible thing, but tends to erode the concept of personal responsibility. I have become a passionate believer that pride and a strong sense that I am the person that is responsible for my position in society, I am the one responsible to change it, will improve so much of the “problems” we have.
So…flip the quarter or don’t vote? Flip a quarter to decide that question too? Makes more sense now doesn’t it?