Debating the Debate

     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!