Debating the Annoyance of Political Posturing

So I was watching the presidential debate last night, and a number of thoughts occured to me.  Let me preface my thoughts with the fact that I am a registered INDEPENDENT, meaning that I agree and disagree with entirely too many points on all sides to officially affiliate myself with any one political party.  Personally, I think all of them are rhetoric spouting hypocritical con artists.  That being said, I shall begin .....

Historically speaking, many presidents who are viewed as achieving great things, were opposed, fought against, and ridiculed during their terms as president.  George Washington (Federalist), Abraham Lincoln (Republican), FDR (Democrat), George H.W. Bush (Republican), Bill Clinton (Democrat), are just a few of our past presidents that achieved great things but were opposed by various factions of Congress and other political ideologists while in office.  Under the current economic landscape, I cannot imagine anyone taking office that will not have opposition of some form.  There will be agreements, disagreements, arguments, self-righteous congratulations, and water cooler grumbling gossip on every single issue addressed as we go forward into this next presidential term, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.  Additionally, our economy tends to be a "trickle down effect" in itself.  The true effects of changes made to policy and programs put in place aren't actually seen until those changes and programs have run their course for a couple of years at the least.  If you look at it logically, FDR, with his unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, was really the only president that was able to truly see and reap the benefits of his decisions while in office.  While other presidents are credited with certain economic gains or stability, a good portion of what occured while they were in power should actually be, at least in part, credited to their immediate predecessors.

One of the major points that I noticed, and that was pointed out by both candidates, is that both are striving for many of the same ultimate goals.  The lowering of rates for middle income families and small businesses, avoiding adding to the deficit, improvement to healthcare options for everyone ... they both agree that these things should be achieved.  The differences lie in how they each think we should go about achieving these things.  Again, it should be pointed out that the issues in the current economic landscape, and the gains that have been and will be made going forward over the next 4 years, should be, in part, attributed to those who were in office before them and the policies and decisions that were made during their term(s).  As far as I could tell from last night's debate, bipartisan effort is going to be extraordinarily important to whomever takes office, unless we're looking for 4 years of stalemate.  Regardless of whose policies and programs are better or more effective or logical, if all sides do not quit the posturing rhetoric and bury the hatchet to work towards the common goal of improving our economy at both a national and international level, our situation is only going to go from bad to worse.  Whether the person sitting in that fabled office is black or white, Mormon or Protestant, privledged childhood or poor, does not matter.  What matters is that all parties rally behind whomever is there so that positive steps can be achieved instead of just talked about.  If we could get all candidates to list out specifically their plans for growth in the aforementioned areas, then have a impartial group assimilate those plans into an excel spreadsheet comparison, that would be most informative and ideal, as the lack of specificity on how each side plans to achieve said goals was, and is, annoying at best.

I'm still undecided, and sticking with my Independent registry.

~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress

The Unfortunate Sophomoric Slant of Politics

The current political arena is driving me nuts.  There is no doubt that every one of the people running for office are intelligent in their own right, but for some reason, instead of focusing on real actual issues with the domestic economy or international relations or crime, they seem to constantly spout rhetoric about how their opponents don't know what they're talking about and can't or won't get the job done.  Even worse, they focus more on smear campaigns to trash their opponents based upon whatever they can find in their opponents' past personal lives or long ago voting records, than on the aforementioned real issues.  There is no one who can honestly say that every opinion / stand / decision that they personally had or made 10 / 15 / 20 years earlier in their lives is the exact same as they would do in the here and now ... which makes the smear campaigns make zero sense.  It's like watching a bunch of high school girls use gossip and subterfuge to try and oust each other to win the homecoming crown. 

Doesn't the constitution state that the government is supposed to be "by the people, for the people"?  Last I checked there was no amendment to the constitution that changed it to "by the people, for whatever the views and whims of the elected ones are".  Inciting a riot by twisting words or telling quarter truths doesn't effectively represent the needs of the population anywhere.  Politicians seem to be guilty of this whether running for office or in office.  Sue me for being simplistic, but candidates simply talking about Their Own views, Their Own Values, Their Own Plans for public policy & economic reform & crime & international relations would be much more useful information for voters than pointing fingers at others.  Ultimately, when elected, they're supposed to be representing the views of the population that voted for them to be there, so understanding where they themselves are coming from is rather crucial.

Additionally, this country's constitution specifically mentions "freedom of worship" for a reason.  Our forefathers wanted all citizens to be free to choose their own religion and follow it without fear of persecution.  As far as I can tell, that would mean that even though one may not understand or agree with someone else's religious choice, it should be respected and not condemned or bashed.  Not in the political arena especially.  If that's a deal-breaker point for a voter, then they'll pay attention to the candidate that most closely aligns with their own beliefs.  Trying to make someone look bad because their religion is different than your own or is something that you don't understand ..... well, that just seems a bit far reaching & completely opposite of what "freedom of worship" is supposed to mean.

The past life of any person, place or event obviously cannot be changed, and speaking constantly of someone else's parts in those past things or someone else's past itself, only makes one's own appear as if there's something to hide.  Focusing on the future, however, current issues, short term and long term plans, goals, the wins in your own past .... well, that would be a much better use of everyone's time & listening skills.  If the candidates focus on that, we might actually be able to elect a government that can truly work together to deliver answers.  The sophmoric tactics and high school popularity political standards need to be taken out of it.

~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress