A brief scan of what FactCheck posits the truth to be versus what both candidates told us reveals a staggering gulf between three realities. Somebody here, i.e., FactCheck, Obama or Romney, has to be more right than the other two because we have three different, mostly incompatible versions of reality. That's just simple, real world logic.
Mars surface - photo from Curiosity rover
September 19, 2012
Most people believe that Romney "won the debate". But is that metric really important? Who best served the public interest? Most democrats will give Obama their vote for being the most honest and accurate. Most republicans will give Romney their vote. Who should most skeptics of two-party politics and ideology mostly believe? Does it matter?
California Moderates will, just for the sake of argument, assume that FactCheck more accurately describes unspun reality than Obama or Romney. If that's true, is there anything that can one reasonably conclude?
Vultures sunning - early morning
Mount Cuyamaca
September 29, 2012
Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that in campaigns for president, unspun truth and reality are not good enough for either party, so they spin (lie, exaggerate, propagandize, deceive, distort, obfuscate - whatever you want to call it). That makes sense. If either Obama or Romney didn't spin, they would have no chance of being elected.
If that latter statement is true then it would seem reasonable to also conclude that most American voters can't take unspun reality like adults. They will just shoot the messenger and/or retreat into their comfortable ideological faith and then shoot the messenger instead of dealing directly with unpleasant realities. That is a defensible conclusion. Of course, it is true that there is no high profile alternative to the two-parties. FactCheck.org should have been invited to the debate and given more than equal time to respond to the drivel coming from both candidates. Something or someone, e.g., a well-informed, neutral, non-ideological voter advocate, in addition to the two main candidates need to be on the debate stage. Without a reality check mechanism of some sort, these debates are a farce.
Doe and fawns - Mount Cuyamaca
October 7, 2012
Assuming the debate was an accurate reflection of the "information" flow in the current election, and most Americans mostly believe in one side's spin over the other, it is also reasonable to conclude that most Americans will vote on the basis of spin and ideology instead of reality. The current debate format is deeply flawed and of value only in misinforming Americans about what they are facing.
Who won the Obama-Romney debate? The two-party status quo won. The public interest, the American people and unspun reality all lost.
Capybara juveniles - San Diego zoo
September 30, 2012
The best thing skeptics of two-party power can do is to vote for neither candidate. Neither really deserves a vote. Or, go for an outsider. Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian and on the ballot in most states. At least Johnson isn't spinning reality the same way as the other two - he does Libertarian spin. And then, there's T.J. O'Hara. O'Hara seems to be a pragmatist, so he will likely get the massive California Moderates vote. The Modern Whig party has endorsed him.
Small lizard on the trail
Cuyamaca mountain range
September 15, 2012
At least O'Hara talks the non-ideology talk and says that special interest money won't buy him. That alone is worth a vote. Neither Obama nor Romney would ever touch the poisonous issue of political corruption by special interest money. They can't touch it. They are bought and co-opted.
