Undecided on the presidential vote

Why am I undecided about my presidential vote?  Many people I know consider that last four years an absolute disaster, but I feel that the president has done remarkably well considering what he walked into.  Bush's reckless entry into 1 3/4 unneeded and exorbitantly expensive wars(I assert that 1/4 of the war in Afghanistan was needed) and his lack of oversight to the economic state of our country brought us to the brink of disaster.  And McCain was determined to continue that course of action.  If McCain were president, my speculation is that the national debt would have turned out about the same as it is today.  Remember that much of that debt came by extending unemployment benefits, seeing that debt guaranteed by the government for the housing industry were paid, cutting taxes, providing food stamps, and trying to get health insurance for everyone.  I'm sure McCain would have done some of that, but I can't help feeling (based on his present comments about Libya and Syria) that he would have also spent more money waging war. 

The key concern for me is that neither Obama nor Romney exhibits the level of conviction that inspires my confidence.  To see my point, look at the debates (available on youtube) and watch their eyes as they speak.  The voice can be faked, but the eyes tell what's really going on internally.  The fact is that neither of them are confident that they have the right approach, the right answers, or even that the other is as flawed as they assert--this all shows in their eyes as they speak.

The prevention of terror and halting of nations obtaining nuclear weapons is a responsibility of the entire world, and every freedom-enjoying nation needs to step up and help.  We certainly should give leadership, but when we act unilaterally (like Bush did, and Romney hints that he will do), rather than working through the United Nations and other such entities, we lose the respect of all, and we end up paying almost all the bill.  Thus, Obama's approach of working through councils of countries seems the most responsible approach.

Containing and preventing terror is one thing, but destabilizing countries because we disagree with their politics, or their human rights record, etc. will not produce the desired effect.  But then why are we so interested in Libya and Syria, but have little interest in Saudi Arabia?  Saudi Arabia has a horrible human rights record and half of the terrorists in 9/11 came from there, so why aren't they "on the list"?  The answer is, of course, "They have lots of oil, so they're excused."

We have to respect countries' sovereignty.  If they want Sharia law, it's really their choice, albeit an unfortunate choice.  We have no business meddling with those countries, except to show them a better way by negotiations and incentives.  But we can certainly draw the line when we see a country working to export terror or to produce a nuclear weapon.  One example--what happens if we start arming the rebels in Syria?  Could Russia start providing arms to the Syrian government?  Certainly, and where would that lead us?   Rather, I approve of the approach of using the international community to provide humanitarian support and to bring international pressure on that country. 

Many challenges during the debates took the form of "You're not doing enough."  There are other flavors of these challenges:  "You're doing too much here and wasting money."  Or, "That should be left to the states" or the "national government" depending on the challenge.  These challenges are just plain subjective.

Before Obamacare, I had adult children serving humanitarian missions and in college, who married, who lost their health insurance at those points in time.  With Obamacare, they now have insurance, and I'm paying that insurance, not the tax payer.  I know people who are self-employed, who have pre-existing conditions, who can't get any health insurance.  It seems wrong that the only answer we had for those people was, "Well, that's too bad."  I cannot accept that this has to be the case for the greatest country on the earth.  Is Obamacare the right approach?  Probably not for many reasons, but  I'd sure like to see a realistic proposal rather than what we've seen.  A key talking point is that it'll destroy small business, but we also have to recognize that if there's a small business who can't get affordable health insurance for its employees, that business loses much of its attractiveness.

What about oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind?  Yes, indeed, but doing so responsibly is the proper way to proceed, not where the only consideration is cost.  I can't help but believe that not controlling the amount of CO2 going into the air isn't increasing the frequency of weather-related disasters, which have been horrendously expensive. 

It's difficult to have confidence in someone who says, "I'm going to repeal Obamacare, then asserts that he's going to reach out across the political boundaries to implement solutions."  That's plays right into the "You're all over the map" assertion that keeps coming up.  But, on the other hand, we know exactly where he stands on this issue.

Now what are the items that greatly concern me about Obama?  1)  He vacated enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act; 2) the continued eroding of the rights of people to practice their religion without government interference; 3) invoking executive privilege in the handling of the ATF gun sting; 4) that the next president will nominate some number of Supreme Court justices, who will probably continue to be disinterested in items 1 and 2.

What does Romney offer?  He certainly has a track record for being effective: 1) in Massachusetts; 2) the Olympics.  Foreign policy?  I think once he's being briefed by the State Department, Pentagon, etc. he'll get the information he needs to lead responsibly internationally.

So, it's really going to come down who do I think will do the most good for our people during the next four years. They both have strengths; they both have weaknesses. That's why I'm undecided.  I'll be choosing in the next couple days.