Replies

As a long-time independent, who decided years ago that both of the major parties were not worth my time or money, I'm in a quandary. On the one hand, we have a President who has shown himself to be less than interested in the welfare of this Nation. On the other hand, we have a Republican candidate who hasn't shown me what makes him significantly different from the current Occupant of the White House.

No third-party Presidential candidate has shown the power needed to win the Electoral College vote. Also, my State doesn't allow voting for write-in candidates.

My concern is a simple one: the President of the United States is first and foremost an executive, who is supposed to administrate the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Courts. The problem is our existing Chief Executive doesn't like that -- forgetting he is no longer a Senator -- and tries to write regulations (with the force of law) more to his liking. I didn't like that with Bush, and I like it even less with Obama. Yes, the President has veto power over law, a veto that can be overridden by Congress. I don't know how Congress can provide checks and balance against Executive Orders -- I don't see that in the Constitution.

So for me, it's rock-and-hard-place time.

Obama has been President for three years, yet I've not seen any original written articles or work product from him from before he was President. (What work product? Nothing significant from the Illinois legislature, and damn little from his stint in the U.S Senate. And nothing from his college days.) He remains a cipher.

I've not yet started a publications search on Mitt, so I don't know if he is as secretive -- but there is his record as Governor, which means there will be work product to read and analyze.

I prefer facts to crickets, which means that, absent a document dump from Obama, my "choice" is clear.

I just want some assurance that we aren't jumping from the frying pan into the fire...