7 Things: Politics Gone Wild!

The following is political commentary. As always, it is entirely possible that I am completely wrong...

On Wednesday night I confess that I watched half of the Presidential debate on TV, the other half on Twitter.  It worked out well for me, a political agnostic.  By the time I got to Twitter I knew why everyone was tweeting about Big Bird and the moderator (Jim Leher) being like a replacement referee in an NFL game. I didn't really need to read the comments from those that I follow who actually care about politics- the Romney fans thought he was brilliant and the Obama fans were certain their man was in control.  I myself chose to be snarky, tweeting that I would watch no more until Ron Burgundy was made moderator, and nominating Sheldon Cooper for President.  But in the middle of all the fun I did have a few serious questions about the political process, and today I share them.  I don't mean to endorse anyone here- I have declared myself a PURPLE state. I am not hating the players, I am hating the game!  So here are 7 random thoughts...

1. Experts say that the debates are designed to change the minds of undecided voters.  I would submit that the only thing most voters are undecided about at this point is whether or not they are going to vote at all.  I just don't see their purpose in this day of unlimited information and 24 hours news cycles. We have heard it all before.
2. If we are going to be subjected to these 90 minute gab fests, then PLEASE- quit telling me what the other guy is doing or is going to do WRONG and tell me what you are going to do that is RIGHT- and why.
3. In DUH News, we do realize that the real issue here is not Romney or Obama, it is the fact that we continue to elect congressmen/women and senators who do everything in their power to fight for their party and almost nothing to represent "we the people"- right? When the goal of our elected representatives becomes keeping people from the other party from being elected rather than working for the good of the country, the system is badly broken. Both parties share equal blame, and both have a lot of people who need to be sent home from Washington. Permanently.
4. In words I thought I would never, ever say, I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh (wow, that really hurt) on this one thing- if the President is re-elected, the Republican Party may be in serious trouble. I am not sure why "The Big Bag of Wind" said that, but here is my historical reasoning.  In 1980 we began 12 years of a Reagan/Bush presidency. Few remember this now, but Ronald Reagan created the first deficit in history in order to repair a horribly damaged economy.  In 1992 Bush #41 was defeated primarily because the economy was a mess and we had the worst deficit in history.  In his first 4 years Bill Clinton was able to do little to fix it, but in his 2nd term the economy turned upward, the deficit was wiped out and he turned over a budget surplus to W. Eight years later the economy was in shambles again and we had our first trillion dollar debt.  The first 4 years of an Obama administration have seemingly done little to fix the problems.  But here's the deal (in my feeble mind)...if he is re-elected (a big IF) and if his plans to fix the economy and begin to reduce the debt work (another big IF) then I don't see how the Republicans come back from that.  To quote Bush #43, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...well...I won't get fooled again."  Or something like that.  The Red State guys need a win or an Obama fail- or it could be all over.
5. Speaking of 43, I think I would vote for any Republican candidate at any level who would be willing to admit that this financial crisis we are in is NOT Obama's fault. He may not have fixed it, but he certainly didn't invent it. Spin it any way you want to, much of the blame lies with the previous administration.  And Republicans, while blackballing W. from the convention and pretty much everything else, just refuse to claim their part in this mess. I will have unending respect for anyone who does.
6. Liberal Democrats seem to be afraid that if Obama is given a second term that he may dessert them and move more to the middle of the political spectrum in order to get things done. Romney is a middle-of-the-road Republican who has abandoned many of his own beliefs to appeal more to the Tea Party and the conservative wing of his party. Wouldn't it be awesome if the third debate was them telling us what they really think instead of what they think we want to hear?
7. And finally, I am sick to death of both sides trying to claim high ground on the issue of faith. Stop it. Here's what I see. I read tweets from both sides slamming the candidates and people who believe in them with harsh words and vitriol, only to tweet the next morning about how we should all love one another.  I heard both candidates talk about saving the middle class, but I heard nothing about reaching out to "the least of these"- as Jesus commanded.  There was (and will be more in the next debate) talk of military power and and shows of strength, but little thought given to peacemaking and the Prince of Peace. They spoke of Big Bird, but there was no mention of Bert & Ernie (if you catch my drift), ignoring a part of the population that has been bullied and persecuted for years.  The Evangelical Church backs Romney because he is a Republican and despite the fact that they consider his Mormon faith an abomination.  Half of the country still believes Obama is Muslim.  Romney said "we are all children of the same god" but we have no idea which god that might be.  Neither of these men and neither of these political parties comes close to representing Jesus and the things he taught. The question becomes less about who is President and more about who has control of our hearts. Who are you going to follow?

So that what I've been pondering these past couple of days. What say you?