Do you remember the 1978 hit song by Meatloaf, “Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad”?
Meatloaf sang that two out of three ain’t bad; He wants her, he needs her, but “there ain’t’ no way” he’s “ever gonna love her”. Why does that ring a bell…?
President Obama and Mitt Romney have now completed their three debates, with Obama winning two out of three (which ain’t bad, don’cha know). He might well have won the first one, too, if he had just remembered to bring his mind along with his body, but he left it elsewhere that night. As a result, Romney took the first debate, giving his campaign quite a boost in the polls. The final two debates should have similarly swung the remaining “undecideds” towards Obama, but they didn’t!
Thus, with 13 days left before election day in the USA and early voting already underway in many states, the remaining “undecideds” must be either
1. not paying attention (which should disqualify them from voting),
2. remaining undecided because they are SEEKING attention,
3. have no idea how the US government really works (this alone should be disqualifying in its own right), or
4. just have issues with basic decision-making.
This last category of people is easily recognized: They can’t decide such simple things as which sock to put on first, the left one or the right one, or whether to put sugar in their coffee before or after the cream…or milk…or coffee-mate (they also can’t decide which). The world is a confusing place for these people, and confused people shouldn’t be voting, either. And why? Because their confused vote might well elect the next president that the rest of us have to endure for 4 years, to say nothing of the congresspeople and senators who will decide our laws. Remember Florida in 2000?
Besides electing the president of the USA for the next four years which includes the general agenda of the president’s political party (a fact lost on many), general elections are extremely critical in a polarized nation like the USA. That’s because in each of the two houses of congress (the House of Representatives and the US Senate, for those who aren’t really sure), the party with the majority controls the agenda of proposed legislation that gets debated and voted on, as well as (pay attention…possible test question) the various committees in each house that mark up legislation before it any full vote.
These facts seem lost on many voters who are still “undecided”. They only consider the person, and not what the person’s election might mean to the party’s political power to control budgets and laws for years to come. These facts are just TMI (too much information) for many “undecideds” to deal with…just more data seemingly designed to add to the already overwhelming confusion and turmoil over whom to vote for…or, put another way, who to saddle the rest of us with for the next 2 or 4 or 6 years.
And if someone doesn’t know why it’s either 2 or 4 or 6 years, that person shouldn’t be voting, either.
Based upon not only the candidate but the candidate’s party affiliation, a primary criteria any voter should consider is the philosophical views and positions of the candidate’s party that will be brought to office, and the effect of that on the power of that party in government. Unfortunately, most independent voters tend to ignore this completely, even if they can make an early decision.
Thus, if an voter is still undecided only 13 days out from the election, the basic political competency, intelligence, and knowledge of that person should be challenged. After all, aren’t those the reasons that children aren’t allowed to vote…because they are, as a general rule, politically incompetent and ignorant and inexperienced in political realities? What, then, is the difference between those children and undecided voters only 13 days left in an election that began almost two years ago?
Conversely, on the extreme opposite end of this issue are voters who have extremist views that they would imposed upon all of us if they could. No, not the Taliban, but people like republican Richard Mourdock of Indiana, running for the US senate and claiming that pregnancies resulting from rape are “God’s will” (no shit!) and whom Mitt Romney has endorsed (now pay attention), or republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, seeking re-election, who believes a pregnant woman’s life is NEVER in danger, (no shit, again!), or even republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, seeking re-election, who thinks homosexuality is a disease that can be cured at her family’s clinic with prayer therapy. (yeah, she really does!!)
So: Pop Quiz time: What’s the connection there? Three congresspeople with extreme views, one with Romney’s endorsement: the beginning of a political power caucus in congress that could ultimately be powerful enough to impose extremism upon others. If they can convinced the undecided voter, that’s even more dangerous.
So if you’re still undecided, then PLEASE stay home and don’t vote. We PROMISE we won’t tell on you.