STORY #1: We are the bored
Remember when the pundits asserted that, for former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) campaign team, bland and boring had become virtues, especially compared to hope and change? The Pew Research Center doesn’t appear to agree. They’ve released a poll showing a sizable increase in the amount of Republicans who would describe this election as “dull.” Bored Democrats are on a downward trend, however, possibly because primary season is over and they can really start getting mouthy. As for us Independents, we’re also getting more bored, but that’s typical for what may be the most business-as-usual election in terms of rhetoric any of us can remember.
Fellow blogger Gordon Chaffin went on a Newsroom-like Facebook rant about this yesterday: “Elections are supposed to present people with challenges, decisions they are supposed to make about where they want the country to go.” I agree, Gord, but the only decision voters have to make this year is which candidate makes them less physically ill. And that sense of physical illness is almost entirely linked to which one has the right idea on the economy. So far? Neither.
STORY #2: Ann’s eureka moment
Ann Romney isn’t a fan of the politics of negativity and demonization. How do I know that? Well, the lady said it, in reference to President Obama’s campaign: “They are going to do everything they can to destroy Mitt. I feel like all [Obama is] doing is saying, ‘Let’s kill this guy,’ and I feel like that’s not really a good campaign strategy.” I’m assuming, by “kill,” she doesn’t mean, you know, kill. (“Destroy” would be more accurate, given all of his metal parts.)
Presidential candidates trying to make each other look as bad as possible? Ya don’t say. This is akin to someone discovering a racist/sexist/homophobe and weepily calling him or her a racist/sexist/homophobe in a lengthy Facebook comment. It’s the most superficial form of political awareness you can achieve. Read a newspaper, I beg of you.
STORY #3: This end up
And now let’s hear from the incumbent: “He said the next election would set the country’s economic outlook for the next decade and beyond.” Ya don’t say! Although I would have enjoyed it more if he’d admitted that the country’s economic outlook would set the next election. In a nutshell, this is what I see happening: If the economy grows at all, it’s Obama; if it comes to a complete standstill or contracts, it’s Romney, and the contraction would have to be severe enough to gin up the “throw the bum out” vote.
