Quantcast

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Undeciders

There's been a lot of invective thrown around the blogiverse about undecided voters.

Incredulous statements have come from both fake sides of the fake political coin. People just don't get how someone can be undecided in a campaign that has lasted two years and wasted billions of dollars.

People like Opinionatrix are fed up with undecided voters' reluctance to buy the steaming pile of monkey crap being flung by the McCain and Obama campaigns:

"In an adult undecided voter it’s a downright stupid and attention getting ploy... Unfortunately for you guys, the rest of us have already mastered the skill of decision making and are thus a bit ahead in the game of life."
Then there's the oft-quoted David Sedaris, who I'll quote here because everyone else has:
I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?
I think Mr. Sedaris is the one who is confused. His metaphor would be more accurate if the flight attendant were offering a choice between a shit platter on the one hand and a bowl of warmed up shit soup with a side of crap crackers on the other.

This is the dilemma we have. Both candidates are horrible. Neither one has more executive experience than my left nut. Each says he's different from the other guy, but they aren't really.

They both think that only the government can save Americans from certain doom. They both want to take more of your money to do it. Remind me again which one of these guys voted AGAINST giving a babbillion dollars to the people most responsible for the current economic melt down.

If either one, when elected, takes any steps to restore constitutional rights abused by the current administration (with full complicity of the Democratic majority in Congress) I'll eat my hat.

So given this Sophie's Choice of an election, my biggest question is how can anyone be so gung-ho about their candidate as to mock the people who are trying to decide whether they want to take a kick in the crotch or punch in the pubes.

The answer of course is that most people who have already decided, decided before they knew anything about either candidate. They're voting for their candidate for the same reason that drunk rowdy football fans cheer for their teams.

Sounds very intellectual and sophisticated, doesn't it?

tagged: , , , ,

18 Comments:

  1. Lodo Grdzak said...
    Obama was against the Iraq War. Seems like that was the right choice. Obama beat a Clinton at politics, which I'd argue makes him a great politican. Obama is a black guy that's on the verge of being President. Seems like he must be able to cross-over and influence people. Obama admittedly flip-flopped and chose to bypass public funding, which in retrospect seems like a damn good choice. What choices have Obama made that have you concerned about his judgment? Compare his decisions and judment to McCains. Come on man, its no contest. Obama' run a nearly flawless campaign from the get-go. He'll be fine as Pres. and if not, 4 years and he's out.
    m.v. said...
    I actually agree with Emaw. It's a coin flip.
    emawkc said...
    Lodo, thanks for the comment as always.

    Nobody's saying Obama's not a great politician. Hell, they're both pretty good politicians. But we've had politicians in DC for decades and look what that got us.

    Hell, even talking about redistribution of wealth, while it made a big media splash, was probably a calculated political move since that's what most American's want anyway (and this leads to a whole separate post).

    You'll not get me to say McCain is better than Obama (that's the whole point).

    But to answer your question, I do have concerns about Obama -- other than the fact that he has less experience than an Alaskan hockey mom. Just off the top of my head, he voted for the $700 plus bailout, he voted in favor of the FISA domestic syping bill, and he has borrowed more money that any candidate in the history of candidates (all of which will have to be paid back in some form).

    That's all pretty much business as usual. My big concern is when I see so many people put on blinders and actually convince themselves that there's going to be some huge, earth-shaking change when all of the historical evidence is to the contrary.
    Old Fart said...
    Bravo. Excellent post. The two political parties are so close together on most issues, it's like trying to tell the difference between Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen.
    emawkc said...
    In my comment I obviously meant "FISA domestic spying bill."

    Although, domestic syping is pretty horrible as well.
    R. Sherman said...
    This is the dilemma we have. Both candidates are horrible. Neither one has more executive experience than my left nut.

    That's an insult to your left nut.

    Cheers.
    Lodo Grdzak said...
    Hmmm. Didn't know that non-politicians could run for President. How does that work? Lets drop the nonsense guys (or possibly gals). McCain's campaign has been flat-out terrible and should be a real cause for concern. We're enmeshed in 2 wars(both of which are on-going; our economy is in the crapper; we've got the fewest international allies we've had in decades; and internally we haven't been this deeply divided since the 1960's. So no offesne, but if after the last 8 years and McCain's embarrassment of a campaign you still can't vote for Obama I have to say that...Im getting a funny vibe.
    Old Fart said...
    Lodo, some of us don't like either party, or candidate. But that doesn't mean we haven't made up our minds. Bob Barr is the candidate that would END the wars right now, and turn the economy around by reducing the size of government which would save EVERY taxpayer money, not just people below a certain threshold. The Dems and Repubs have morphed, so there are so few differences between them. I can see how some folks might not be sure who to vote for, if they feel they MUST vote for a major party candidate. And that is the rub.
    R. Sherman said...
    Against my better judgment, I'm going to comment again.

    I own a small business which supports all or part of twenty families. Mr. Obama's tax proposals will kill me. I won't pay more personal income tax, but I will pay substantially more "hidden taxes." Those will have to be passed on: to my clients, to my employees or in the form of reduced payroll.

    Trust me on this: It will happen. I am not going to continue to work seventy hour weeks so that my money can be taken by a cadre of politicians to hand over for votes in order to continue to be invited to the best parties in Georgetown.

    Just sayin'

    Cheers.
    Donna said...
    Thank God somebody finally sees it as it is.

    I'm still waffling on who I'll vote for. I won't know until Tuesday when I'm in my small-town polling place with pencil in hand.
    Lodo Grdzak said...
    To R. Sherman,

    There's got to be a price to pay for flat-out incompetence and criminality. A President's (and his party's) job is to protect the borders. Are you satisfied? A President's job is to keep the economy growing. Satisfied? A president's job is to protect our interests and good name abroad. Satisfied? A president's job is to lead at home and provide confidence during times of catastrophe. Satisfied? How 'bout bringing people together? Satisfied? Come on man. Low taxes mean nothing if your customers dont have money in their pocket and confidence to spend it.
    Old Fart said...
    Lodo, exactly where do you find the things you believe are the Presidents "job"?

    [A President's (and his party's) job is to protect the borders.]

    As Commander In Chief of the Military, you got this one HALF right. His political party has nothing to do with it. He's responsible to protect the US from attack as C I F.

    [A President's job is to keep the economy growing.]

    The economy is influenced either positively or negatively mostly by the laws of this country. Laws are made by Congress, not the POTUS. Tax laws included. The POTUS can give approval or veto laws that influence the economy, but its not his "job" to keep it growing. Yeah, its probably in his best interest if it DOES grow, but he has no Constitutional mandate to make it happen.

    Try reading Article II Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, the job is spelled out fairly clearly there.

    It's actually supposed to be a pretty boring job unless the country is at war. He appoints people to be in his cabinet, he appoints judges, he appoints ambassadors (the last two with consent of the Senate), and he is the commander of the military. He can ratify a treaty, but again, only if the Senate says "yeah ok, go ahead and sign it". Oh, and he's supposed to report to Congress on the State of the Union each year. He can convene or adjorn Congress in times of extraordinary circumstances. Last but not least, he's supposed to make sure that the Federal laws that Congress passes and that he signs are implemented. That's all the job is supposed to be.

    The only job that is supposed to be more boring it the Vice Presidents jobs.

    Basically, Every President until Woodrow Wilson followed the constitutional job description... then it went to hell and its gotten worse with every idiot King wannabe that the sheep of the political parties elect every four years.
    "The D" said...
    I like to tell people the I'm still undecided and then go though all the pros and cons of each jerk-off running. But I use points like Obama is taller, but McCain's wife is hotter, stupid things that don't have any bearing on the election at all.

    I do this for my own fun. When in fact I have already voted (THANKS KANSAS! YOU ROCK!).

    I don't tell people who I voted for because its nunya beezwax who I voted for, or how I voted on any other issue.

    All it does is create an argument I have no interest in taking part in.
    R. Sherman said...
    (EMAKC, I apologize for the appearance of hijacking your post via the comments.)

    Lodo,

    First, thanks for responding.

    Alas, I disagree with many of premises expressed in your comments.

    Fundamentally, I wish to be left alone. Am I satisfied with the Bush Administration? Not particularly. I am one who is suspicious of any politician who screams that the sky is falling and claims to be able to protect me if only I hand over more of my personal liberty.

    Islamic Terrorism, Global Warming, Economic Disaster -- pick your poison. There is only one reason for screaming these things to high heaven.

    Make no mistake: It is to get you and me to sacrifice ever more of our personal freedoms for some elusive security.

    I've run the numbers a thousand times, and I'm telling you. Mr. Obama's tax proposals will kill small businesses. If they pass, I know precisely to the penny how much they will cost me.

    And, again, trust me:

    I will not work seventy hour weeks to pay the bill to by some politician votes.

    Unless you, Lodo, decide to put a gun to my head.

    Cheers.
    Lodo Grdzak said...
    Incredible,

    We get to do one thing as voters--namely, opt to vote for the opposing party when things are going poorly and from what I can see, everyone associated with this blog plans to simply play their instruments like they're the band on the Titanic. Why not just have a royal family? If you wont change parties now you never will. 72 year old McCain with Palin waiting in the wings?! Great choice guys. Enjoy the music and the starry night!
    emawkc said...
    Lodo, I appreciate your willingness to stay engaged in this discussion. Thanks again for commenting.

    But I think you're missing the point that most of the commenters are trying to make. That point being, that the two parties have become so close as to be indistinguishable.

    I'm frustrated that voting has become an illusion. I wish you were right, I wish we had the choice to vote for a different party. But that's not the case in this campaign.

    I'm also frustrated that more people don't recognize this. Politics truly has become the opiate of the masses.
    Lodo Grdzak said...
    Well Emawck,

    Its your blog and Im gonna give you the final word. Enjoy your weekend--and everyone else as well!!!
    Faith said...
    "I'm also frustrated that more people don't recognize this. Politics truly has become the opiate of the masses."

    I love it when other people agree with the stuff that's running through my head.

    I have a friend who's husband works at Mizzou, and they were literally front and center (well, a little off-center) for the Obama visit last night in Columbia. It sounds like ridiculous amounts of people showed up, as as been the standard at the Obama rallies of late. And I just shake my head at it...maybe it's my hate for large crowds, but I don't understand the fervor. You can watch the guy speak up close and personal on your computer from home by pulling up any number of different key search words on YouTube. Why go and cram yourself in with 74,999 other people in order to hear him talk?

    To be fair, I feel the same about McCain or Palin rallies.

    I am admittedly apathetic when it comes to politics. And when people question my apathy, all I have to do is point fingers at thing like this campaign. The best description of it, IMO, is ridiculous waste.

Post a Comment