Obama or Romney? Why 5 undecided voters are still on the fence.

Julia Wrapp, Boulder, Colo.

Amanda Paulson/The Christian Science Monitor
Julia Wrapp

Occupation: real estate agent and entrepreneur

Personal: single

2008 vote: Obama

Julia Wrapp cares about economic issues and environmental sustainability, and, as an entrepreneur, is concerned about how difficult it has become to start businesses these days.

The Boulder native reads extensively and hears from people on both ends of the political spectrum – she says her father threatens to leave the country if Mr. Obama is reelected, while a close friend goes to Obama rallies. But she has never registered with a political party and considers herself more libertarian than anything.

"I very much believe in personal responsibility," says Ms. Wrapp, who expresses deep concern about the direction of the country. "I think it's the scream in an insane asylum, going over a waterfall," she says. "That's where I think we are."

Over the past few years, Wrapp has spent a lot of time helping her best friend deal with a serious health issue; and as a result, health care looms large for her. But she'd also like to see incentives for people to take care of their health.

A businesswoman, she respects Romney's business acumen but says she isn't sure she trusts him – or most politicians, for that matter, though she respects that they run. She longs for more discussion of ideas and vision, rather than the negative ads and pandering to special interests that she tends to see.

"What I look for most in a president is the ability to lead with integrity and strength of character through these times," Wrapp says. "I wish there were a candidate where I thought, This is easy. But I just have concerns.... I'm very much against big government, and that may end up being the deciding factor in my vote."

Wrapp is neither apathetic nor uninformed – she's just unenthusiastic about the choices. In the end, she says, "I'd vote for Obama because I'm not sure I trust Romney. I'd vote for Romney because I'm not sure Obama can handle the job."

– Amanda Paulson, staff writer

2 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.