Undecided Voter – Why I Don’t Like Each Presidential Candidate

Some presidential elections I have someone I want to vote for. More often, I’m voting against someone. This is one time that I’m having trouble deciding which is the evil of two lessers, and it’s frustrating. If neither one can do something that radically changes my opinion, I likely won’t make a presidential pick this cycle, and here’s why:

John McCain

I liked John McCain during his 2000 bid for president. He was energetic and very much not your typical Republican candidate. Unlike the underwhelming son of a former president, McCain seemed very capable of running the country well. Eight years on, I’m seeing a tired and sometimes unfocused man trying to reclaim past glory. That gives me a lot of pause. We’ve seen first-hand that aging presidents are rarely good for our country. If he wins, John McCain becomes the oldest elected first-term president in the history of the country. I think that’s not a good thing. Strike one.

John McCain has embraced supply-side/free-market economics…or, as some derisively call them: supply-slide/free-falling economics. This is the same economic model that was embraced by Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W.Bush. Let’s take a look at what this philosophy has bought us by looking at the national debt:

Figures obtained from whitehouse.gov by zfacts.com

It’s pretty clear from the graph (and many others) that this economic model doesn’t work. The only outcome has been the weakening of the middle-class, and the bolstering of wealth of large corporations and the already wealthy. With the current banking situation, I think it’s pretty clear that this economic philosophy should NEVER be used again. Strike two.

Senator McCain chose as a running mate someone of dubious qualifications in what can cynically be described as an attempt to not only shore up the (frequently scary) evangelical base but also a patronizing attempt to woo women voters. In the weeks since the announcement, Sarah Palin has had minimal exposure to the public: a canned speech for the Republican convention and three (3!) interviews with the press. Honestly, I can’t remember a vp candidate being so sequestered since Vice Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate. What are they afraid of, that Tina Fey will garner more support than the actual candidate? Strike three…you’re out.

Barack Obama

When Senator Obama started his bid for the presidency, my first reaction was, “Who?” After all, I was a Clinton supporter and while this young upstart had many similar policies, it was clear that he didn’t have the experience that his more storied rival did. Obama hadn’t been around the world, several times, getting acquainted with world leaders and having to serve as a representative of the nation as the former first lady did. He hadn’t been in the Senate for very long learning the machinations (and realities) of Washington. While he’s improved somewhat over the past year, the lack of experience isn’t warming me to him. Strike one.

When it comes to speechifying, I think the senator can talk a good lick. Trouble is, more often than not, he hasn’t said much…but he has said it very well. Now that he’s facing an opponent who is also large with the vague, Obama has been a little more into specifics, but still seems to lack that rhetorical point of view that says that he has a good plan for when he enters office. Strike two.

And speaking of vp-picks… I’d told the Obama campaign back when he was the presumptive nominee that the single best way he had of securing this Clinton supporter’s vote was to put her on the ticket. Not only would it have shown respect to her supporters, but he would have had a capable partner on the campaign trail. Instead, he chose Joe “The Gaffe” Biden. While some pundits lauded the choice, all I can say is that at least Obama didn’t totally Palin the opportunity. Even so, Biden has been keeping the spin podiatrists busy removing his foot from his mouth (on the plus side, at least he out there). Strike three…you’re out.

Decision Street

On the blocks where I’ve lived, and at times in my own home, we’ve seen a mini-financial crisis at the end of every month. Perhaps that’s why we aren’t panicking too much over the current banking crisis. After all, few middle-class (and lower) Americans actually have enough savings to worry about. It’s all going into surviving for today. So, I’m really less interested in what the next president can do now than what he can do for us heading into the future.

Obama talks a better lick about this than John “How Many Houses do I own” McCain. Conversely, Obama’s inexperience for the first year or two could easily bollocks things to the point where he’ll make few lasting improvements—spending his legacy more on damage control. While I don’t think McCain will hit the ground running, I do think he’ll have better positioned support, at least initially. While I’m not sure he actually has any long term plans for the rest of us (I haven’t really heard anything), at least he might not screw things up too badly at first. (See, Clinton actually having lived the White House life for eight years I think was the only person who could hit the ground running.)

I’m pretty much where I started before the conventions. I think both candidates had the opportunity to make pivotal choices in runnings mates which would have shown voters a lot, but mostly they just let people down…not something you want to do when you are trying to capture those elusive undecideds. McCain’s economic philosophy is huge with me, but Obama’s lack of experience is only slightly less worrisome…not smaller enough to get me to vote for him. If I had no choice but to make a pick, then it would be to have Palin nowhere near the White House (Tina Fey, maybe, but not Palin).

So…there it is. McCain has pretty much eliminated any hope of getting my vote. It remains to be seen if Obama can get me to choose him. Unless there’s a big change, I doubt it. As of now, for the presidential portion of the ballot, I’m not planning on voting for anyone because no one has earned it.

From my point of view, the real question of this election is how many ballot boxes will be “misplaced”? Will this be another election where the results will be somehow manipulated by forces outside the electorate? I’m not generally a conspiracy-type person, but there have been some curious shenanigans going on for quite a while now. You’d think that after more than 200 years, we’d have gotten good at this election thing.