Could Uninformed Undecideds Sway the Election?


“Where are you headed GLIMPSE?”

“Where you can’t find me.”
“Ha. Funny. You’ll have to run faster. Say, aren’t you going to tell what you think about the second presidential campaign debate? Aren’t you going to comment?
“Sure I am.  Like most democrats I know and have seen interviewed, I think Mr. Obama was most impressive.  I’m relieved that the intense, articulate, and spunky President I have learned to appreciate is back from his slump, and loved it when Candy Crowley corrected Mr. Romney—or ‘Mittens’ as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls him.
“You remember. Mr. Romney challenged Mr. Obama’s truthfulness when the President said after the September 11 Libya embassy attack, that the following day he identified it as a terrorist operation.  Ms. Crowley told Mr. Romney the President was correct. People clapped, and Mitt looked stunned.  Her name probably won’t be listed among the ‘qualified’ in the would-be-president’s ‘binder full of women’ should he be elected.”
“Come on! You’ve got to admit Romney did okay. He was aggressive.”
“Aggressive is your word.  ’Bullying’ is mine.  However I’m certain you consider Mr. Romney the winner. ”
“You got that right.”
“A fascinating thing about the debate is that the Gallup organization found such apparently informed ‘undecideds.’ Undecided voters typically are perceived as “low information” voters.
Reuters news service reporter Daniel Trotter notes that undecideds, who make up 6 percent of the electorate, have been the subject of pundits’ scorn for their indecision.
“ He quotes comedian Bill Maher as saying, ‘This year at the debates we should skip that thing where the undecided dial in their reaction to every little moment and instead hook up the dial to their foreheads to see if there is an measurable brain activity.’
“Trotter bases his reportage on polls Reuters co-sponsored during the campaign. The information he came up with is enlightening.  
“Most of us have encountered people like a former colleague who was simply indecisive.   At a restaurant she would ask over and over what others were ordering then  bury herself in the menu and make humming sounds until  her friends made suggestions and coaxed her to order.
“Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, told Trotter 56 percent of the undecided are women. He calls them “Walmart moms.”  The polls show the group is mostly made up of white females without a college education who earn less than $25,000 yearly.
“As you might suspect they struggle to get by and care little about the national budget.  On polls asking questions about the presidential candidates, national issues, and intention to vote the undecided commonly answered’ don’t know,’ or ‘refuse to answer.’ They were twice as likely as other voters to answer ‘unsure’ when queried about personal views on same-sex marriage, health care, immigration, and the national budget.
“Yet 75 percent of these voters who admit knowing little about national affairs believe the country is ‘on the wrong track.’ And when asked which candidate was more eloquent, likeable, or presidential they mostly answered ‘neither.’
“Mr. Trotter quoted Helen Krueger, 54, of Grants Pass, Oregon. The mother of seven voted for John McCain in 2008. She said she normally knows who she is goings to vote for but this time is different.  She said she needed to do ‘more research.’ She claimed the President has done a ‘lousy job’ and she indicated she thought Mr. Romney wants to tax the ‘medium class and low class’ and let the rich get away without paying taxes.”
“For once you’re right Glimpse. That is an enlightening portrait.”
“Yeah. And the scary thing is some predict that in a tight election the undecided may sway the election one way or the other. Let’s hope that prediction’s wrong.”
“Finally you’ve given an opinion I can agree with.”    

                                                                                      ---Gus Gribbin

               

Debate? How? There Was Just One Debater


      “Hey Glimpse!  I’ve got a question.”
                “And that is?”
                “Did you see that first Presidential Debate?”
                “Yeah. I saw it.”
                “Wow. Your guy might as well have stayed home. Old Romney came out swinging. Full of pep.  Full of facts and figures. He cut your guy down to size. But the President probably didn’t even feel it. Man, he was in a coma. Bet you’re worried now aren’t you? But hey, it’s a free country. You can switch sides and back Romney. I won’t tell another living soul.
“But really what did you think of the debate?”
                “No question, Mr. Romney dominated that affair.  My guy, as you call him, made me think he might not want a second term. If that were true, I can understand it. The country is almost as divided as it was during the Civil War, and it’s not likely to get easier for him if he wins.”
                “You’re really worried aren’t you?”
                “Sure. I want to see Mr. Obama reelected, and, at this point, it seems he might lose. I’m as sad as I am worried. He let his followers down.”
                “Well take heart, friend. If Romney’s elected, the country will be better off. By next year this time, you’ll see jobs coming back big time. Romney will get rid of Obamacare, he’ll stop throwing money at people who don’t want to work and take responsibility for their lives. He’ll bring the age of coddling freeloaders to an end. It’ll be like old times. We’ll show the world America still has some muscle and can’t be pushed around.”
                “If so, we’ll see the volume of pain and suffering in this country rise, the gap between rich and poor will increase, there will be fewer restraints on Big Business.  Our world won’t end, but it will be turned around if Romney wins.”
                “It’s about time!”
                “I know there’s absolutely no point of arguing about this. The truth is, though, that neither your vision of what will happen nor mine is accurate.  Would-be presidents can achieve just a fraction of the things they promise to do they’ll do if elected. And many of the things we blame or praise Presidents for are things they couldn’t do much about anyway. If for instance there were obvious solutions to the slow economy, Mideast peace, and the rest, it’s certain they would have been adopted.  Presidents don’t have as much control as we impute to them.”
                “Okay. If that’s so, what difference does it make who you vote for?”
                “For me it’s this. I think I have a fair idea where Obama stands. He’s not ideological. He’s a pragmatist—a centrist. True, his campaign has said some nasty things and bent the truth—what you’d call lying--but I trust him. Romney’s done the same truth bending.
                " I’m biased, so I think Romney’s dishonesty is worse. That aside,  I could never vote for him. I don’t know who he is. Months ago he was a “severe conservative.” Months ago, he was going to get rid of Obamacare on his first day in office. Now he sounds like a “moderate” and now he supports much of Obamacare. The contradictions go o and on. Who is he?
“In the debate Romney came on in a rush. He spouted facts and figures. He declared everything President Obama has done is wrong. To me, he seemed frenzied and acted like a man who will say whatever will grab him a few votes.
“I’d rather vote for a smart, dedicated politician who doesn’t really relish the presidency than for a politician who will say—and possibly do—anything to win the prize.  After all, a few of our greatest Presidents practically hated the job. George Washington is one. Abraham Lincoln another. And they did magnificently.”
“I’ve got to tell you Glimpse—you’re full of it.”
“That’s what you always say. But look—you indicated you want what’s best for the country. We both want that. Let’s just hope we get that wish.”
“Yeah. Okay. One more thing though Glimpse. I saw an Obama-Biden sign in your garage. Are you really going to put that on your lawn?”
“You betcha.  But I’ll tell you, if Romney wins, I’ll still lend you my hedge trimmer when you need it.”
“It’s a deal.”
                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

What if Free Speech Sparks Subversion?


                So what is it about the President’s free speech talk that you don’t understand, Glimpse?’

                “I understand what he said.  He said that Americans had the right to make even ‘a crude and disgusting video’ like the one that caused the recent outbreaks of violence in the Arab world. And I heard him say that, ‘As president of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will defend their right to do so.’”

                “Well?”

“ I have trouble with the notion that under the guise of free speech Americans can deliberately make videos ,or cartoons,  or movies, or whatever that they know will set off riots in the Arab world.”

                “Oh! You’re opposed to free speech. Ever heard of the First Amendment, Jerk?”

                “Of course I have. I can even recite it for you:

“ ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’”

                “There you go, Glimpse. Impressive.“

                “Yeah. My problem is that I question whether it’s a good idea to allow people in America to issue smarmy insults of Islam if they know their actions will damage U.S. interests, possibly cause American deaths, and play into the hands of our self-proclaimed enemies.”

                “Come on. You’re comparing such material to aiding and abetting the enemy?  OMG what a huge stretch.”

                ‘”Not huge. Remember, free speech has never been absolute. You can’t legally say anything you want under all conditions.  You can’t tell harmful lies about people.   You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater for fun.

“And under the Espionage Act, it is a criminal offense “when the United States is at war” to “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military…or to promote the success of its enemies….”

“The Espionage Act doesn’t apply.”

“But should it? We’re at war. At least that’s what the government calls that dreadful affair in Afghanistan. We’re said to be at war with al-Qaeda and other terrorists. And it seems that movies or writings that deliberately provoke the volatile masses in the Arab world may ”promotes the success of our enemies,” Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Jihadists. Among other things, such malicious images and writings arouse hatred, aid recruitment efforts of terrorist groups, and give legitimacy to our enemies’ anti-American activities. “

“Humpf. Fly that idea around and watch it molt.”

“Probably. But if the scurrilous, riot-generating, anti-Islam videos, movies, and publications continue and increase, I’ll bet their authors will see our counter intelligence folks rummaging for ways to stop them or at least prosecute them.”

“Glimpse, you’re on a limb. What has counter intelligence to do with this stuff? We’re talking about free speech.”

“Think about it. If this ‘stuff’ were arranged by Iranian agents, say, we well might call it subversion.”

“Now you're a conspiracy theorist?”

“Subversion can be defined as an effort to disrupt society and its power, authority, and hierarchical structures.  It aims to undermine the enemy’s government and loyalties in some way. It is a cheap, subtle, mostly risk-free warfare tool—Cool  it. stop fidgeting, and:

“Consider Egypt. The United States needs or wants revolutionary Egypt as an ally. Iran needs or wants Egypt to oppose us. If it appears, through flag burnings, protests, and riots, that Egypt’s citizens hate the U.S., the popular mood could make Egypt’s leaders leery of engaging with us. That works against our interest and in favor of Iran’s

“Given that, savvy Iranian intelligence officials might find it convenient to use its operatives in the United States to find and fund fringe types who would produce materials guaranteed to incite Egyptians to vent hatred of the United States.”

“Don’t know, Glimpse, if that’s even an interesting theory.”

“It interests me. And as Sherlock Homes reportedly said, what’s not impossible is worth considering.”

                                                                -----Gus Gribbin