At least 3% of likely voters are still unsure which Presidential candidate they will vote for on Tuesday, Nov. 6th, the final day of Elections 2012, according to a Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll released today.
Millions of dollars spent on negative ads haven’t done the trick. News media reports of Obama’s bungles in Benghazi and his strength after Frankenstorm Sandy haven’t worked either.
Undecided voters need a simple way to cut through the clutter of pros and cons to decide whose box to check, a reason that is not simply one’s race, sex, age or wallet size.
Should these undecided voters pick the nice, rich, black man, Democrat Barack Obama, who says he needs 4 more years to finish the job he started? Or should they vote for the nice, richer, white guy, Republican Mitt Romney, a successful businessman whose pal Clint Eastwood says, “After 4 years, isn’t it time to give someone else a chance?”
Don’t let the candidates fool you: this election is not about protecting women’s rights, Social Security, Medicare or Obamacare, either.
Nor is it about whether Romney can create more jobs, stimulate the economy, reform healthcare (by replacing Obamacare with something better) or better protect our citizens overseas.
Both men can claim anything in a campaign… just as Candidate Obama did in 2008. If the last 4 years prove anything, they prove that presidential promises don’t often come true, especially when Congress needs to agree with the President’s grandiose, pie-in-the-sky plans.
So what really matters? How do you decide whom to vote for if you are part of the 3% that’s still undecided?
It’s simple… just step back from the picayune issues the candidates would like you to focus on and ask one question:
What kind of government do YOU want… the huge one we are floundering under now, or a smaller government more like the one we were founded upon?
Yes, it really is that simple. Which do you want: A big federal government that is growing bigger by the minute and continues to spend more money than it brings in? Or a smaller, more effective, less expensive federal government that learns to live within its means?
Obama believes in a big (and even bigger) federal government that “pools resources” and “redistributes wealth.” In simple terms, that means taking more money from the most successful American companies and citizens to build even bigger, more expensive federal departments, bureaus, administrations and services that spend our money as the government bureaucrats see fit.
Mitt Romney doesn’t want a bigger, more-costly, more-controlling federal government. He doesn’t want to penalize the most successful people in America to fund a federal government that has grown, over several previous administrations, horrifically inefficient, wasteful and way too powerful. He wants to return more control of our money back to us, and to our home states, not to Washington, the Feds and a government that clearly has lost its mind.
That’s the choice we have on November 6th. Bigger vs. smaller federal government. More control over us, or more control by us. It’s a simple choice, really.
Like Kelly’s article? Click “Subscribe” by her name, befriend her on Facebook and follow her on Twitter.
Want to read more?–> View all of Conservative Kelly’s articles!