Food for Thought for Independent Voters

I just happened to be in the kitchen fixing a little snack and turned on the radio just in time to catch a snippet of Dennis Prager's interview with Michael Medved on Prager's radio show.

Medved has just published an e-book called The Odds Against Obama in which he argues (among other things) that, historically-speaking, the numbers just don't add up when it comes to Obama being re-elected. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on this. However, the few moments that I tuned in were interesting more from the phone call from a listener than anything Mr. Medved had to say about his book.

The caller introduced herself (I think her name was Kim) and labeled herself as a "Christian Independent Gay Person" (or CIGP, as Dennis joked). The gist of her call was that she was not impressed with Obama in the aftermath Democratic National Convention but that she wasn't entirely sold on Romney, either, and she didn't know what to think.

I thought Michael's response to her was very good. He asked her if, as an independent, she wanted to see more cooperation between the parties in Washington.

Of course, she replied. Like most people, she's tired of the gridlock.

Then ask yourself, Michael responded, which of the two candidates is more likely to cooperate with members of the opposite party: Romney, a successful Republican governor of Democrat-leaning Massachusetts whose legislature was comprised mostly of Democrats, or Obama, who early in his tenure alienated members of the opposite party (he famously shut down Republicans objecting to the size of his stimulus package by saying, "I won"), who rejected Republican input regarding his health care reform bill and ended up passing it without a single Republican vote, whose entire campaign is based on characterizing the Republican party as not only wrong but evil?

Point well taken. Kim seemed to agree.

After Kim hung up, Dennis asked Michael to explain the caller's ambivalence. Michael attributed it to the possibility that she, being gay, might still struggle with the perception of the Republican party as being anti-gay (it is not). He hopes people like Kim are able to understand that there's a difference between believing the one man/one woman definition of marriage and being anti-gay.

I'd add that I feel the gay marriage issue has become a red herring in terms of its relevance (or irrelevance) to this election. In my view, the key issues that should matter to voters are the economy, the deficit, taxes, and the size and scope of government (which is related to the previous three). Social issues like gay marriage and even abortion, which is only back in the spotlight because of the asinine comments of an irrelevant Republican senator, should be subordinate to these other issues.