Obama vs. Romney
I am a liberal, so it goes without saying that I voted for Barrack Obama and not for Mitt Romney. Not because I blindly vote for a party, but because I believe we should all vote for the person that best represents where we want the country to go. Every time I hear someone say they are voting AGAINST Obama, my skin crawls a little. Not because I want Obama to win (although I do) but because I cannot understand voting for someone you really cannot say you know what he believes or stands for.
I hated George W. Bush. I did. I hated him when I lived in
and he was governor. I truly disagreed
with his politics, where he took the country, and how he seemed proud of not
being able to find a coherent sentence with both hands and a flashlight. I was crushed when he was elected in 2004,
because I was in a liberal bubble and I truly believed people would be tired of
him by then. However much I hated him, I
still respected him. I respected his
courage, his conviction, and I really liked his wife. Every time I saw Laura Bush somewhere I would
have to think “He can’t be so bad, if she is married to him.” Although I disagreed with him on just about
everything, people chose him for him; they all knew what they were voting for
and what they were getting. You win some
you lose some you know? While I could not understand a majority of the country
choosing him, I accepted it. Texas
With Romney none of you know who he is. I keep hearing people say things like “I just closed my eyes and voted.” Or, “He is a moderate; he just said all those things to get the primary votes.” Or, “He’s a real conservative; he just had to govern that way in
was such a liberal state.” Basically, as
with a lot of things, people are choosing to see the Mitt Romney that fits
their belief system. The reality is none
of us know where he stands on most issues, because he is the king of the flip
floppers, hands down; no competition. Massachusetts
The other big argument for Romney I hear is the economy. I hate to burst people’s bubble, but he is no more capable of really changing things than Obama is. The reality of our economic situation is that it is not Obama’s fault; it is not W’s fault either. They can all take a little blame for the bad; a little credit for the good. But the largest economy in the world does not turn around in a couple of years because of the almighty president. Maybe if the president were a dictator that could implement policies by himself and totally control things, and even then – the external factors vary too much and are too unpredictable. What happened to our economy is 2008 is more Bush’s fault than Obama’s because he had 8 years and total control for 6 of those, with the Republicans in congress rubber stamping billions of dollars in spending and tax cuts. You know, when they could give two shits about the deficit. The reality is our economy was on the brink of collapse in 2008 because of bad decisions made for the previous 30 years and there is plenty of blame to go around. Read “Too Big to Fail” (or watch the movie) if you seem to have forgotten (or never really knew) how bad it got and how close we got to the brink.
People who think Romney is somehow going to magically fix this economy choose to ignore the fact that he cannot do much without the support of congress, so unless it is filled with rubber-stampers, it ain’t happening. Not to mention that he has no control over things like
China, or Europe, and our economy depends on facts over there as
well. The fact of the matter is that our
economy is like an 18 wheeler, and people think it’s a smart car. Turning it
just a bit is harder than it looks. Making a U turn is really really hard. Now if you are one of those people that think
Romney hung the moon because of his business experience, I am sorry but running
a business is not the same thing as running a country. If experience is what matters then Obama’s 4
years as president trumps the one term as governor which would actually be more
comparable. This line that “Obama never
ran anything in his life” or “he never had a real job” is just one of those
things people say on Fox news and Obama haters eat up. Most of our political leaders were lawyers
like Obama, and I think they would take offense to being told they didn’t have a
I want to say I am not Obama’s cheerleader; never was. I was a Hillary girl during the 2008 primary precisely because I thought he lacked experience. However, after being president for 4 years that argument is obsolete. Nothing prepares you for the presidency like being president.
It is quite humorous to hear people talk about “Obama’s policies” like he has been able to implement much of anything the last 4 years. You would be hard press to find an agenda that was obstructed more than his in history. I saw a montage of all the things republicans on TV said would happen if Obama were president back in the fall of 2008. The country would cease to exist if they let this man run things. None of it happened, but that does not stop them from making the doomsday prophesies again. Except this time they say: if he is re-elected. Yeah.
In my humble opinion, the real problem in our politics is the lack of term limits and the money in politics. As long as people can serve in congress indefinitely, and as long as they need lots and lots of money to get elected, nothing is going to get done. They are all too concerned with keeping their job to actually do their job. It is all about the money, because it gets them elected and that is all that matters. It does not really matter what the party says, they are all bought and sold by corporate money, so stop telling yourself that it makes such a huge difference which candidate wins, or which party is in charge. I do believe, however, that if anything significant is to happen from 2012 to 2016 it will happen under President Obama and not President Romney because Obama does not have to worry about reelection. His main concern will be his legacy, as it is with every second term president. Meanwhile Romney will pander as he has done for the last two years in order to ensure he keeps his job. Too busy raising money to get reelected to do anything – as Obama has been for the last two years.
My biggest disappointment in Obama is his foreign policy. No, not
. That is just the latest blow-it-out–of-proportion
issue on the right. Yes, I said it. I am sorry those 4 people got killed. How many people died in Benghazi over lies?
No outrage there. So shut up about it
already. I’m talking about Iraq and the predator
drones, and everything else. But you
see, after reading “Drift” by Rachel Maddow my cynicism grew even more. And now I know that when it comes to foreign
policy, it does not matter what party the president is in. The military industrial complex wins and will
continue to win so let’s stop pretending the party of the commander in chief
matters on this issue either. Our foreign policy is one that has evolved over
the years with little difference to who was Commander in chief. Guantanamo
As far as I can tell there is only one issue where it makes a difference who is president and where his beliefs lie, and that is the Supreme Court. If you look at the decisions that have shaped our every day lives the most, it matters who is on the court. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court is appointed for life and they have a level of independence that the other branches of government do not have. Now, no matter who the president is, he or she will do everything they can to nominate someone so uber qualified it will be hard not to confirm them. Unless you are W and think you can get away with nominating your friend, remember that one? She withdrew, as she should have.
The Supreme Court gave us W as president by the way, when they decided to stop the recount. A decision so overwhelmingly bad they stuck a PS on there that said “this can never be used as legal precedent.” Yeah. Nice work. That was the court that was mainly a legacy of the 12 years of Reagan and Bush, with a touch of
. We all know who W nominated, as you could
expect, very intelligent qualified conservative white men. In four years Obama has put two women on the
court. One is Jewish and rumored to be
gay, the other is Puerto Rican. Of
course, they are very intelligent qualified liberal WOMEN. I am sorry, but in a time when we feel it is
ok to discuss what qualifies as legitimate rape, this matters. Clinton
I hate to bring it down to social issues. But really, who is Romney going to put on the court. No one knows for sure. If the guy who was governor shows up they might be moderates. If it is the guy who won the republican primary, they will be to the right of Attila the Hun. My gut tells me if he nominates someone in his first term, he will pick someone who is very ultra conservative because he will need to run for re election ad will need the religious right to win. Which means we will have to have the conversation about whether or not a one week old bag of cells in a uterus has the right to sue somebody for land. I am sorry, but if my daughter is raped and gets pregnant, I will kill any man who dares tell me she has to carry the rapist’s baby to term because it is, after all, a life. And I say this while 36 weeks pregnant with my second child. Pregnancy is hard, and it is life altering, and our government has no place forcing a woman to go through it against her will; any more than the Chinese government has the right to force an abortion on a woman. That’s right. If we go down this road we are just like the Chinese, or the Taliban, deal with it.
This is the main reason I cannot bring myself to vote for Romney and do not understand why half of the people voting for him are doing so. They do not know who he is. They cannot. Now, if you are one of those people who do not care about these issues, then I understand this is not on your radar. But if you care about the right to decide what happens to your body, if you care about equal pay, or marriage equality, civil rights, immigration issues and others. You can expect the right to privacy to come up soon, as well as internet independence, and other 21st century issues. Is it really smart to hedge your bets with a guy you have no idea where he stands? I could never do it. If I were not such a liberal, I would vote for Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or just stay home, rather than vote for the etch-a-sketch candidate.
I hope Obama is reelected and I believe he will be. Thanks to the presidency having term limits, he might actually be able to get something real accomplished in his second term. Still, he passed health care, he got two women on the court, he implemented the best part of the dream act and he killed Bin laden. Not too shabby. I read this is the last election where having a majority among white men can actually make a difference, and that is scary to a lot of folks. I will save racism and sexism for another blog though, because I have a lot to say on those subjects.
I will leave you with an article from The Economist. For those unfamiliar with the British magazine, it is a conservative publication who usually endorses someone for the American president with an objectivity that only comes from an outsider. In 1980 they picked Reagan over Carter, in 84 and 88 they did not pick anyone for they felt none deserved an endorsement. Clinton in 92, Dole in 96, W over Gore in 2000 and I believe reluctantly chose Kerry in 2004. In 2008 they chose Obama, and this year they are unenthusiastically endorsing Obama over Romney. They are right on every point, with a fairness that makes me sad because it is so seldom seen in journalism today. I encourage you all to read it if you care about politics and economics, and so you can see a truly fair and balanced account of who these two guys have shown they are: