It's time for a reality check ...

News Flash:  Conservatives won’t vote for Obama; Liberals won’t vote for Romney

You heard it here … well, not first.  And that’s the point.

Amidst all the huffing and puffing in the media about the “battleground” states, the “swing” states, the “independents” and the mythical “undecided,” the talking heads keep trotting out conservatives to criticize Obama and liberals to criticize Romney. 

It’s always the extremes. It’s always the same stories. 

Liberals blather on about how Obama’s done a great job given what he “inherited,” and how most Americans agree with what he’s done, and plans to do; you just have to believe in Obama.   Conservatives harp about Obama’s shortcomings, his “failed policies,” and how he’s always blaming Bush for everything; Romney’s the non-nonsense business guy who will end all this. 

After this charming little tête-à-tête, both sides start calling the other liars.

And that’s where the real fun begins.

Let’s face it … most politicians and their campaign staffers wouldn’t know the truth if it bit ‘em on the ass.  The so-called “fact checkers” they both quote are hardly impartial either.  Even the CBO only quotes on specific questions, so if you include or exclude data, you can get whatever answer you want out of them.

It’s lies, damn lies, and statistics, per Mark Twain.  Manna for policy wonks and wonkettes; same old crap for the rest of us.

And how many times do we have to listen to blowhards parsing out the most insignificant things to make a point – usually that the other side lies.

Does it matter more that Obama ignored the Simpson-Bowles recommendations?  Or does it matter more that Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations because he disagreed with a provision that essentially accepted ObamaCare as a given?

It’s stuff like that – the “I voted for it before I voted against it” – kind of crap that makes us all crazy.  And why the public feels politicians in general, and Congress in particular, are about as trustworthy as a gypsy playing poker with blind people.

Simpson-Bowles is over the heads of the general public.  They don’t understand what the panel recommended.  They don’t even know who Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are.

Most probably think Simpson-Bowles wrote a string of Motown hits.

Net/net, neither the Republicans nor Democrats had the guts to support the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles.  Now move on.

In another tidbit of contention, both parties claim the other has released no detailed plan for dealing with the economy.

That’s true. Neither has, and why would they?  Whoever puts a detailed plan out there now will be savaged and that plan will be micro analyzed and misrepresented by the opposition.  The Republican and Democrat parties may not be that smart, but they at least know that.  (That's also why you're not seeing Romney's tax returns either; not that he has anything to hide and he's apparently not broken any laws, but it would just give fuel to fools.)

However, not having a plan does not stop the same politicians from running ads claiming their plan is better than the other guy’s plan.  Which is to say – in reality – that  their lack of a specific plan is better than your lack of a specific plan.

Net/net, we’re all left guessing.  We do know what Obama’s done so far, and that clearly hasn’t worked.  A lot of us think that almost anybody else – Romney included – would do better.

If that’s a somewhat tepid endorsement of Romney, so be it.

He doesn’t set hearts aflame with the passion Obama supporters have, and never will.  He’s just not that kind of guy.  Ryan is; Romney’s not.   Then again, while Obama excels at bringing the heat, Biden’s like some drunken uncle who always says the wrong thing at family gatherings.

But back to the bickering …

Despite what Democrats say, Romney’s not a monster and Paul Ryan doesn’t want to push granny over the cliff.  Obama’s not a monster or a lunatic bomb-throwing radical either, nor a savior held back solely by an obstructionist Congress.  Joe is … well, just Joe; he’s the Democrat’s Dan Quayle. 

Obama's just proven to not be a very good politician; Clinton faced Republican majorities as well -- and people devoted to his failure -- but got major pieces of legislation through compromise and gaining real bipartisan support, including welfare reform.  Obama can't seem to bridge the gap.  

Both sides are now scrambling to sway the “undecided” and the “independents,” so the claims and counter claims keep amping up.  And the champions of whatever specious causes politicians are using to micro-slice the electorate keep getting more air time.

That’s the only reason some nit-wit like Sandra Fluke got a key speaking spot at the Democrat Convention.  Or why a moron like Todd Akin gets so much attention from the left.   Or why another out-of-far-right-field guy like Rick Santorum got to address the Republican convention.

And why, night after night, the Karl Roves of the world are pitted against the Debbie Wasserman Schultzes of the world.

The silliness is that anybody thinks any of this is going to change anybody’s mind.  As if liberals listen to anything Karl Rove has to say, or conservatives anything that Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, either.  Or, for that matter, anything speakers at either convention say. 

None of this matters.  Most people have already made up their minds over who they’ll vote for.  Anybody who tells you they haven’t decided yet or don't know who they’re even leaning toward is full of crap.  Chances are they aren’t even registered to vote.  They just like the attention.     

In the end, those who think things are on the right track will vote for Obama, as will most of the Democrat base.  Those who think things are on the wrong track and want a change will vote for Romney, as will most of the Republican base. 

That’s how it works.