Every
presidential election, since I was old enough to do so, I have went to the
polls and voted. My first election was
when Clinton ran for office for the first time. Two things we had in common, Clinton and I,
it was a first for both of us and we both played saxophone. One might argue that these are not
similarities at all, but when you’re young the details do not matter.
A trend, that
seems to rear its ugly head every presidential election, is not that there is
ever a clear cut choice as to who will be best for the job; rather, one person
always pops out in your mind as “the lesser of two evils.” That’s the one you chose.
This year it’s
not quite so clear to me.
When trying to
determine which a lessor of two evils is, first you must identify the most important,
worst platform stance. Then, here comes
the fun part, decide what their best argument is. What is the one thing that is good and just
that this person stands for and is it significant? Is this person (keeping in mind their dumbest
idea) still worth the risk? Should I
pick them because that little bit of good I found makes it possible to overlook
the rest? So you sit down, pen and paper
(or keyboard and Word) in hand, and begin the pros vs. cons list.
Candidate #1: The
current Commander in Chief
I have a problem
with Obama. No, I’m not going to get
into a statistical debate in semantics, everyone knows, when it comes to
politics and religion, no one is the winner.
My issue is simple. Before you
ever decide on who is in the running, for any position in life (from cheer-leading to football tryouts all the way to employment opportunities),
first you have to determine if they even qualify to run.
Yes, I’m back on
the birth certificate. It’s so simple, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you’re
applying for a job at McDonald’s or a volunteer position at a hospital, regardless;
first you have to prove you are who you say you are. As far as my experience allows, every place
of employment requires a birth certificate.
If I have to obtain one to show
as proof, for even the most menial of reasons, how is it that you can even run
for the top position in the nation, get hired and sworn in, and yet, there’s
still a debate on whether or not you were born?
Okay, in all fairness, we know he was born. Still, you see what I mean.
By the time one
finally materialized, it was questionable.
Though I have to admit, somehow the American people decided to overlook
the entire issue all together. I wish
the Nevada DMV would be as forgiving.
Just to transfer my Washington state license they not only demand a
birth certificate and social security number, now they can (and DO) require that
I obtain a state certified copy of my first marriage, a state certified copy of
its dissolution and, a state certified copy of my current marriage. You know, to show the history of how my last
name changed from my birth certificate to what it is now. (I wonder, does this mean searching out your ancestry,
for future generations is going to be a breeze?) Now I've had a driver’s license in Alaska,
Georgia, North Carolina and Washington and never had this much trouble transferring
to a new state. If I have to do all
this, what was so hard about one person obtaining one state seal certified
birth certificate, which was not “questionable”?
Candidate #2 Mitt Romney
Right out of the
gate, he has a lot going for him. He has
a birth certificate= #1! This brings me
to #2, he’s qualified! Now I can review
the resume and see if there’s enough going on in here to assist me with making
a decision.
All the pathetic
slander ads make it easy to decide what are the negative platforms working against him. Yet, as he meets number
one and two criteria, at this point, all I’m looking for is that one little
thing that makes him win by that minuscule fraction of a second.
Then in comes the
Roe vs. Wade decision…? Now I know I've been busy lately and not following all
the media in the political scene (the argumentative nature of it all weighs on
me too heavily, even if I wasn't too busy), still, and here’s a bit of redundancy
for you, isn't this a bit random? Again,
I’ll be just; every political campaign always touches base with this for
posterity’s sake. What gets me is this
has become a woman’s right issue. Did we
somehow revert back to an older time frame while I was out busying myself with
mundane life activities?
First the
positive… hmmm… Well at least he’s not the guy who claims that if a woman is
truly raped she can’t get pregnant!
(Yeah, and that guy is in politics.
Go figure people blame the youth for the downfall of our country. The youth?
Like have they not seen this guy?
Oh, and not only heard his ridiculous statement but he won a majority
vote somewhere and is a person in charge and able to make decisions that affect
others!)
Focus!
Looking for positive…
Serendipitously, I
found myself watching (among other politically geared news) a program that began
not so much in Mr. Romney’s favor. It
seems that there are some woman out there that have volunteered to do
commercial ad’s endorsing Obama based solely on his stance in support of
abortion.
Don’t get me
wrong here, for I’m not turning on my feminine sisters, but if you ask me, that’s
like putting a Band-Aid on a tumor. Not
downplaying the importance of this ONE issue, but there is so much more involved
with running a nation than just a singular issue, especially when you take into
consideration the national debt and what’s going on with the world at large and
how the next commander in chief will deal with circumstances that have an
impact on the rest of the world.
What was
fortuitous was a comment made at the end of the program. At least Romney is in support of abortion for
a female that has been raped or incestuously impregnated. To play devil’s advocate, for just a moment, here’s
a scenario: Take a 15 year old girl who
has been incestuously violated and the result is a pregnancy. Then what?
If she goes in to get this approved abortion, wouldn't that mean she has
to prove her need of it? She’s 15, which
means the male has broken the law, beyond just the incest factor. So now, is she forced to get the law
involved? And what about how her family
will react? As I personally just went
through a similar situation, I can tell you that my relatives chose to believe,
not the victim, but the perpetrator.
Long story short, I just don’t see an already scared 15 year old girl
(as only one example) walking into a clinic and capable of facing all of the consequences
that would follow. (Stage right: in
walks back alley abortion, just saying.)
So looms the
upcoming debate between the top two candidates.
With the election right around the corner, I must say, I’m hoping that
who makes it across the finish line first is obvious. However, this is politics. What if, when all is said and done, this race
comes down to a neck and neck decision, to be determined by the judges? Then what?
We hold our breath that the refs weren't some lackey’s that were fired
from the lingerie league and are too blind to call, in the least, a pass
interference? The issue is far larger
than Seattle needing to save face, the outcome of our shaky economy and the way
the rest of the world views our weakening position, is at stake!
