Tell Us Why You Care — Obama or Romney?

We get pretty rowdy on this blog when we talk politics. Clearly we care about this election and the issues before the country. And, amazingly, we occasionally listen to each other. Bless you all for reading and participating.

Let’s get personal. The election is on — we can vote already in Florida.

Each of you has three sentences. I’m voting for Romney because… I’m voting for Obama because… I’m voting for Johnson because… I’m skipping voting and getting drunk instead because…

Tell us why you’re voting for your guy, and also why you’re not voting for the other guy.

I’ll start:

I’m voting for Barack Obama because his views and instincts on everything I value are consistent with mine: environmental protection, alternative energy, human rights, education, affordable health care, and the fact that everybody counts. He also is always thinking long-term; not just about what might work now, but what will be best for the whole country and the planet over many years. I can’t stand Mitt Romney because he’s BushCheney redux, he represents and will serve those who already have it made, and he’ll do or say anything to get in the position to serve those like himself. — Bruce Benidt

OK — your turn:

20 thoughts on “Tell Us Why You Care — Obama or Romney?

  1. Jeremy Powers says:

    I agree with you Bruce on why I will vote for Obama. But I differ on why I will vote against Romney. There used to be two kinds of business people in the world – builders and climbers. It would be a stretch to call Romney even a climber. He is more like a business demolitions expert ready to tear down the Taj Mahal to sell the marble pilings. I look at young people my daughters age and the idea of going into an American business makes them want to puke. Donald Trump and Mitt Romney are not role models except for other greedy, self-absorbed, money-grabbing assclowns. The benevolent business owners of the past are fewer and fewer and the 1990s “I got mine” money grubbers have been promoted to the level where they are grabbing everything of value from this country like the Martians in War of the Worlds without regard to the fact that if it keeps up only 10 percent of this country will be able to own a house or ever retire..

  2. I’m voting for Obama because he has done a laudable job in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Obama is rational, fact-based, moderate and his fellow travelers will not attempt to impose social policies on me and my family that I find objectionable. And, finally, he believes – as I do – that government has an active, muscular role to play in our society as a force for good.

    – Austin

  3. Great idea for a post Bruce. I’m not declaring my vote here as I cherish my secret ballot and the country that allows me to cast it as such.

  4. Gary Pettis says:

    I like Romney because he is sharp, politically savvy, a teetotaler and committed to his faith. The reason he is doing so well in the polls–and has a chance of pulling less thing off–is because the average American middle-of-the-fencers have seen through the spin and distortion coming from Team Obama. They like what the alternative is saying and doing.

    Many of my liberal friends tend to cry foul when the GOP applies heavy spin and isn’t 100 percent with the facts, but these acts happens on both sides. Some call it marketing and messaging. Others call it manipulation and maddening.

    This is a competition for the most powerful job in the world, and sometimes the battles aren’t pretty. The tactics aren’t pure, and when it come to politics, most of us can call the plays about as skillfully as replacement refs.

    Don’t post back to me with all sorts of wonk-isms because as we prepare to land for arrival on January 6th, everything is moving forward with strong gut feels. Buckle in, put your tray in the up position and put your seat forward. Most minds are made up.

    We have to trust the voters to see though the clutter, and for most, according to most of the recent polls, are envisioning Romney as president. Short of telling the Big Lie or launching mass brainwashing techniques, Romney seems to be doing everything a candidate should to beat an incumbent president.

    Hats off to him.

    In regard to the perception of media bias, I found these headlines and pictures from The Des Moines Register refreshing. Unsmiling and looking-over-the-shoulder Obama with darting eyes, versus smiling, energetic and engaging Romney with a dash of charisma.

    http://twitchy.com/2012/10/25/awesome-pic-des-moines-register-dings-obama-with-dramatic-front-page-contrast/

    Aside from Sandy’s impact, most people are going to the polls with the hopes of avoiding a hard, bumpy landing come January. Based on the photos in the link above, you would you choose to be your pilot?

  5. Gary, I agree it’s going to be about gut. Merciful in a way that Sandy may overwhelm last of campaign. The cases have been made. Let’s talk on election night. Buckle up indeed.

  6. I’m voting for Romney. He’s got a plan. Like it or not, it’s something. I’m not voting for Obama because high unemployment, trillions in spending and the worst economic recovery in 60 years don’t impress me. Neither does wasting billions on “green jobs” and a foreign policy that amounts to leading from behind and then denying that terrorists still attack us…as in Libya.

    1. Brian Lambert says:

      Hmmm, who to go with? A professional financial manipulator who refuses to discuss how he’d do any of the things he’s promised … or not do the things he promised before he stopped promising them and started promising the exact opposite? Or … the guy who pulled the country through the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression — a crisis created by financial manipulators who abhor transparency — and has allowed the rest of the planet to forgive us for eight years of George W. Bush?

      The easiest call since ’72.

  7. PM says:

    I’ll be voting for Obama for a couple of reasons.

    1. I happen to think that government is not only generally good and tends to make people’s lives better, but that it is essential, and a well run government makes us a better nation. I think that it is pretty clear that people who have a general disdain for government do not do a good job running government. Compare the Katrina response to the Sandy response for an example. For that matter, compare Obama’s position on FEMA to that of Romney–who would like to end FEMA and turn responsibility for disaster response and relief over to the individual states–and would significantly cut funding for FEMA in his budget. On the other hand, Obama and his administration have done an excellent job with Sandy. NOAA got it right in all of their predictions about the size, scope and landfall. And the FEMA efforts have been highly praised by Governor Christie–who has also had words of praise for Obama and his role.

    2. I do not trust Romney at all. his positions on a variety of issues (indeed, most of them) have been all over the map. He has changed those positions as his audience has changed. He has shown a willingness to say and do anything at all in order to gain political power. Despite a surface adherence to a religious faith, he has publicly demonstrated no faith to truth or morality–or to the American people. His comments about the 47% seem to me to be the most honest thing he has said so far this election–and disqualify him for the office he seeks.

    In many ways, i think that Romney’s service and record as Governor of MA are quite similar to Obama’s service and record as President. If Mitt had run as the former Governor of MA, and defended the record that he crafted there, I’d have been willing (and likely) to vote for him–because I think that that Mitt Romney would likely be able to really accomplish some good things in Washington DC. But that (sadly) is not the person who is running against President Obama. I do not think that even Mitt Romney knows who Mitt Romney is or what a President Romney would do.

    Forward! (I hope)

    1. GARY PETTIS says:

      Yesterday afternoon, I was treated to the sight of an anti-war protest in a city-center park near the Mankato Post Office. The protesters were small in number but were enthusiastic in waving their protest signs. Much of the lot hosting up the signs were older than one would expect, first wave Baby Boomers, and not a one looked like the type that would be casting a vote for Romney.

      One protest sign said, “Close Guantanamo Bay”.

      There’s a novel idea, and a promise made by Obama four years ago during his first presidential campaign. Even with complete Democratic dominance of the House and the Senate, Guantanamo Bay was not closed by President Obama. And he never did a thing ever to address the problems associated with illegal immigration, another huge campaign promise that Obama never fulfilled.

      That’s why this whole “who can you trust” messaging is malarkey, and is vulnerable to an ordinary person who starts to put two and two together in regard to Obama’s unfulfilled promises.

      Obama’s performance makes anyone question if he or she can “believe most of what he says.”

      General maxims:

      Never trust anyone who overuses the word trust.

      A person who under promises is more likley to over deliver.

    1. Gary Pettis says:

      Do like your humor Joe. These parodies are gut-splitting. The real Toby Keith is a way taller dude, bro. I think this little video ditty speaks directly to those college-age kids who are having a hard time finding a job for which they were educated.

  8. Gary Johnson because, in Minnesota in particular, a vote for a third-party candidate means a hell of a lot more than a drop of democracy in an ocean of foregone conclusion.

    And I’m a libertarian. 🙂

  9. PM says:

    OK, this is the last one, i promise!

    The Financial Times has endorsed Obama (I am copying the entire thing here as it is paywalled):

    Obama is the wiser bet for crisis-hit US

    This year’s US presidential election has been a dispiriting affair.
    Compared with 2008, when Barack Obama emerged triumphant against all the early odds, the 2012 campaign has offered little inspiration, still less instruction, on what Mr Obama or his Republican rival Mitt Romney would actually do in office.

    Yet Tuesday’s election is arguably as important as any since 1980, when Ronald Reagan’s victory accelerated a shift to deregulation and supply-side economics. Today, after the Great Crash of 2008, the US economy is recovering, albeit too slowly for many Americans out of work or in search of a decent-paying job. US pre-eminence is under threat in a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labour readily available. In Afghanistan, the Middle East, north Africa and the South China Sea, America’s resolve is being tested.
    Neither candidate has provided convincing answers on how he would respond to these challenges. In a risk-averse campaign dominated by political consultants, both men have displayed a poverty of ambition. There have been few glimpses of a better future, of opportunities to be seized thanks to cheap natural gas and America’s potential for energy self-sufficiency.
    What is clear is that both men have a different philosophy of government. Mr Obama is an interventionist. He staked all on healthcare reform, bringing 30m Americans into a safety net. The president also pushed through a $787bn stimulus package that saved the country from another Great Depression. He poured billions into rescuing the Detroit car industry and secured several hundred thousand jobs. His other legacy is the Dodd-Frank act, the most sweeping reform of Wall Street since the 1930s, though one which has only been fitfully implemented.

    Yet Mr Obama has often been curiously aloof. He has been notably cool toward business. The self-proclaimed agent of change has at crucial points failed to exercise leadership. He declined to endorse the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan panel’s recommendations on cutting the ballooning federal deficit. The White House blames the implacable wall of opposition from Republicans in Congress. However, Mr Obama himself commissioned the report. The US now faces a “fiscal cliff” on January 1, which could trigger swingeing spending cuts and tax increases that could plunge the country back into recession.
    On foreign affairs, Mr Obama has displayed caution after the misadventures of the Bush administration. He has withdrawn US forces from Iraq and drawn down troops in Afghanistan. He has pursued a relentless covert war against al-Qaeda terrorists and suspects. He boldly hunted down Osama bin Laden. He has been on the right side of the Arab uprisings. On Iran, perhaps the next administration’s biggest foreign policy challenge, he has negotiated much tougher economic sanctions – without, however, slowing decisively the Tehran regime’s plans to build a nuclear bomb.
    Mr Romney’s foreign policy proclamations have been far less reassuring. He has been needlessly belligerent. His advisers have a neocon hue. Yet the Obama campaign’s attempts to cast Mr Romney as a billionaire predatory capitalist are surely wide of the mark. His Bain Capital experience and his term as governor of Massachusetts suggest a man comfortable with exercising executive power.
    The more serious objection to Mr Romney is that he has gone through so many contortions to win his party’s nomination that it is hard to see how he would govern in practice. His wishlist includes an aspiration to raise Pentagon spending by a fifth while cutting everyone’s taxes and still somehow balancing the books. Such fiscal alchemy is an exercise in evasion, not a recipe for sustainable economic recovery.
    Mr Romney’s latest positioning as a pragmatic centrist appears to fit far better than his earlier incarnation as a rock-ribbed conservative Republican beholden to the Tea Party. The trouble is that it is impossible to be sure. His protean persona relies more on market research than any innate political philosophy.
    As in his response to Hurricane Sandy, Mr Obama has shown that purposeful government can be part of the solution rather than the problem. Four years on from the financial crisis, with extreme inequality an affront to the American dream, there remains a need for intelligent, reformist governance. Mr Obama, his presidency defined by the economic crisis, looks the better choice.

Comments are closed.