Sweet-holy-mother-of-fuck, I think I'm going to die of a spontaneous cranial explosion.
My apologies, dear readers; allow me to recap. As of my last entry, I made a promise to do some research into the current presidential campaigns and return, illuminated, to expound and enlighten you all. I was completely unprepared for exactly how much raw crap I was going to have to immerse myself in. I don't mean to offer that as an excuse for my tardiness, but I hope you'll be forgiving.
There are so very many places I could start this from, but for the sake of disclosure, I'll open by telling you all right now that I'm going to double down on President Obama. I will admit openly that I haven't been entirely satisfied by his performance thus far and I fully expect that I'll be heading to Canada in a few short years regardless of whether he wins or loses, but after looking at what the Republicans are fielding as their champion, I really cannot see a better course...given the circumstances.
What do I hold against Fearless Leader? Well, for starters I am less than pleased with Obamacare; I'm an advocate of single-payer and although I would have been content to settle for a public option, I'm not pleased to see that health care reform mutated into insurance reform. I've said myself that I'll take what I can get, but frankly I'm not pleased with the legislation. I'm irked with his delay in pursuing immigration reforms. I understand he spent most of his political capital on the health care law and I don't want to sound like an advocate of of mass-deportation, but the fact is that 12 million illegal immigrants are having a net negative effect on our economy and frankly, our social system cannot handle the strain being place on it by these people. I am pissed that Barry wasted the first two years trying to play nice with Republicans while they continued to hold-up his jobs bills, financial reform bills and every-other-goddamn-thing they could. I give the man credit for his ethics and integrity, but he allowed those virtues to be used as weapons against him and against us, the people who elected him.
All that being said, let's give credit where its due; Obama managed to implement policies that lowered unemployment, started getting a handle on health care costs for everyone, wound down the war in Iraq, lowered the cost of financing college and put paid Osama bin Laden. Let's don't overlook the thirty consecutive months of jobs growth, either. I am hopeful that he'll go a great deal further in putting the country back on an even keel once re-elected (the $50 billion high speed rail plan currently being blocked and fought by congressional Republicans would be a good start), though I am still planning for a worst-case scenario.
That "worst-case" being, of course, the election of Willard Mitt Romney to the office of the presidency. I know that more than a few of you are probably figuring that I've gone and drunk the left-wing Kool-aid, however I beg you to bear with me for a bit. My objections to the man from Massachusetts are not partisan, rather they are based on his own words and his own record. Let's begin with the fact that the man's credentials as a conservative are less than stellar; under Romney's leadership, Massachusetts saw increased taxes, the establishment of state subsidized health insurance and the establishment of gay marriage in his state.
Now I don't mean to give the impression that I think these are at all bad things; they are not and I support them wholeheartedly. My problem lies in the fact that Romney has flip-flopped on every. single. one. I am not talking about the sort of change-of-mind that occurs as the result of processing new information or an expansion of perspective. I am talking about the sort of unequivocal pandering in which a political coward indulges in order to appease whichever audience he is appealing to at a given moment. Case in point: from 2004 to 2006, Romney was backing a legislative initiative to subsidize health insurance, which included an individual mandate. The resultant law, referred to as "Romneycare" was endorsed on all sides and strongly backed by the late Senator Kennedy. Now that he's running for the Presidency, Mr. Romney has declared he completely opposes not just the mandate, but the entire legislation, modeled after is own achievement. Of course this might not actually be the most spectacular reversal Romney has made; we should also consider his position on the auto-industry bail out. In November of 2008, Romney was adamantly opposed to government interference in the crisis in Detroit. However, now that Detroit is firing on all six, as they say, and Romney is running for President, the whole "let's save the American auto-industry" thing seems to suddenly be his idea from the outset.
As bad as the flip flopping is, and believe me when I say that it is bad enough to put me off of the man without further consideration, the fact of it is that even more disagreeable is the bloody whining. I will be the first to admit that the Obama campaign has tossed proverbial fireballs at Romney, in terms of attack ads. I will go further to say that I find such things to be beneath his character and not in keeping with his better ethics. Regardless of that however, I would have hoped that Romney would have learned by this point that, A) politics is a contact sport, and B) how you respond to your opponent matters. How did Romney respond? By complaining and demanding an apology; Romney and the Republicans want to cry, "foul!" In the wake of Citizens United and unlimited campaign funding. In the light of endless accusations of being a socialist, of being a Kenyan, of being a Muslim (as if that is supposed to make a damned bit of difference compared to the guy that claims to have magic-fucking-underwear) and even less rational assertions, Romney and his cohort are guilty of a level of hypocrisy that leaves me utterly gob-smacked. As if this weren't bad enough in its own right, when this sort of whining is looked at relative to the attacks Romney launched against his politically weaker opponents during the primaries and the literal assault on smaller, weaker persons in his youth, the man's conduct can be seen as nothing less than detestable. I'll dismiss a hypocrite and a whiner but I hate a bully; someone who brutalizes those least able to defend themselves then cries about unfair attacks on himself is beneath contempt. He is beneath contempt and completely unsuited to leadership.
And speaking of leadership, let me take a moment to echo the thinking of a more conservative friend of mine. One of Romney's favorite talking points, what seems in fact to be his default position on an question requiring the slightest depth or consideration, is his insistence that his administration will work, confer, consult and/or cooperate (or any other synonyms you happen to have handy) with congress to address, resolve, fix and/or what-have-you whatever topically convenient ailment the nation has at the moment of conversation. Given that Romney and his cohort have made such a noise about the imagined lack of leadership in the current administration, you might think they'd have a at least a few ideas about how a Romney administration would go about fixing whatever it is that they think needs fixing. Yet, as Romney has repeatedly stated and I am here repeating and underlining, all they tell us is how they're planning to consult with congress; however necessary that may be, what it is not is leadership. Leadership means putting forward both a goal and a plan for achieving it. Romney hasn't done this and has in point of fact made something of a sport of dodging such questions and the people who have the temerity to ask them...or, again, whining about it.
To be completely fair though, Romney doesn't seem to do well when it comes to handling the big, messy, unscripted real world. When the recent attack on the embassy in Libya occurred, one had to expect that Romney would move to place himself in a position to speak about foreign affairs and the president's foreign policy. One would not even be surprised, knowing Romney as we now do, to hear him regurgitating more shallow talking points, but to start with the "apologizing for America" line again? Worse yet, doing it before Obama or the administration had actually said anything yet? Or how about the fact that he used an active, immediate, then-happening attack on Americans to take political shots at the sitting Commander in Chief?
That's not all though, oh no. It just keeps getting worse. I know I've made a point in my writings of my support for and belief in capitalism, in personal accomplishment and the general rightness of taking on the responsibility of being a citizen in a free society. If that is unclear, then allow me reiterate that point: everyone, excepting the severely disabled, is obliged to be a contributing member of society. You are not entitled to a free ride in this country. However, it would seem that Romney has managed to take a basically good and ethical ideal and pervert it into something poisonously destructive, thus revealing not only his general lack of any, slightest-fucking-clue about how life works for those of us not born into wealth and privilege, but also his basic contempt for...well, about half of the bloody country. Worse yet, and damn it I am getting tired of how it always seems to be "worse yet" with this guy, there are actually people out there trying to defend this screed and spin it. At this point, do I even need to remind you that the man has still refused to release his tax forms for his time as governor of Massachusetts or his tenure at Bain Capital? Forbes is a business publication; when its writers start to squint at financial data (as Mr. Riley does in the article sourced in the above link) its worth paying attention...especially since, as a business publication, a critical examination of Romney constitutes a certain level of evidence against interest. How about reminding you that Romney has, literally, tens of millions (that we know of, it may be more) of dollars stashed in foreign banks, yet he is supposed to be a beacon of economic ethics, confidence and enlightenment? Certainly the man claims to be some sort of great benefactor the American people by creating employment...yet, if so, why does there seem to be such controversy over the matter?
There are forty-two days until we go to the polls. At this point, I sincerely hope Romney continues to show the same sort of character he has exposed thus far, as it will all but guarantee his failure. That may sound harsh, but at the end of the day even if Fearless Leader is re-elected, we will still have to contend with Romney's political influence and positions because, at the end of the day he will still be a multimillionaire...hundreds of times over. If, on the other hand, Romney somehow manages to win the election, then I suspect that although there will likely be fewer people in the middle class shortly there after, more working poor and still more poor, homeless and unemployed...and Romney will still be a multimillionaire.
My apologies, dear readers; allow me to recap. As of my last entry, I made a promise to do some research into the current presidential campaigns and return, illuminated, to expound and enlighten you all. I was completely unprepared for exactly how much raw crap I was going to have to immerse myself in. I don't mean to offer that as an excuse for my tardiness, but I hope you'll be forgiving.
There are so very many places I could start this from, but for the sake of disclosure, I'll open by telling you all right now that I'm going to double down on President Obama. I will admit openly that I haven't been entirely satisfied by his performance thus far and I fully expect that I'll be heading to Canada in a few short years regardless of whether he wins or loses, but after looking at what the Republicans are fielding as their champion, I really cannot see a better course...given the circumstances.
What do I hold against Fearless Leader? Well, for starters I am less than pleased with Obamacare; I'm an advocate of single-payer and although I would have been content to settle for a public option, I'm not pleased to see that health care reform mutated into insurance reform. I've said myself that I'll take what I can get, but frankly I'm not pleased with the legislation. I'm irked with his delay in pursuing immigration reforms. I understand he spent most of his political capital on the health care law and I don't want to sound like an advocate of of mass-deportation, but the fact is that 12 million illegal immigrants are having a net negative effect on our economy and frankly, our social system cannot handle the strain being place on it by these people. I am pissed that Barry wasted the first two years trying to play nice with Republicans while they continued to hold-up his jobs bills, financial reform bills and every-other-goddamn-thing they could. I give the man credit for his ethics and integrity, but he allowed those virtues to be used as weapons against him and against us, the people who elected him.
All that being said, let's give credit where its due; Obama managed to implement policies that lowered unemployment, started getting a handle on health care costs for everyone, wound down the war in Iraq, lowered the cost of financing college and put paid Osama bin Laden. Let's don't overlook the thirty consecutive months of jobs growth, either. I am hopeful that he'll go a great deal further in putting the country back on an even keel once re-elected (the $50 billion high speed rail plan currently being blocked and fought by congressional Republicans would be a good start), though I am still planning for a worst-case scenario.
That "worst-case" being, of course, the election of Willard Mitt Romney to the office of the presidency. I know that more than a few of you are probably figuring that I've gone and drunk the left-wing Kool-aid, however I beg you to bear with me for a bit. My objections to the man from Massachusetts are not partisan, rather they are based on his own words and his own record. Let's begin with the fact that the man's credentials as a conservative are less than stellar; under Romney's leadership, Massachusetts saw increased taxes, the establishment of state subsidized health insurance and the establishment of gay marriage in his state.
Now I don't mean to give the impression that I think these are at all bad things; they are not and I support them wholeheartedly. My problem lies in the fact that Romney has flip-flopped on every. single. one. I am not talking about the sort of change-of-mind that occurs as the result of processing new information or an expansion of perspective. I am talking about the sort of unequivocal pandering in which a political coward indulges in order to appease whichever audience he is appealing to at a given moment. Case in point: from 2004 to 2006, Romney was backing a legislative initiative to subsidize health insurance, which included an individual mandate. The resultant law, referred to as "Romneycare" was endorsed on all sides and strongly backed by the late Senator Kennedy. Now that he's running for the Presidency, Mr. Romney has declared he completely opposes not just the mandate, but the entire legislation, modeled after is own achievement. Of course this might not actually be the most spectacular reversal Romney has made; we should also consider his position on the auto-industry bail out. In November of 2008, Romney was adamantly opposed to government interference in the crisis in Detroit. However, now that Detroit is firing on all six, as they say, and Romney is running for President, the whole "let's save the American auto-industry" thing seems to suddenly be his idea from the outset.
As bad as the flip flopping is, and believe me when I say that it is bad enough to put me off of the man without further consideration, the fact of it is that even more disagreeable is the bloody whining. I will be the first to admit that the Obama campaign has tossed proverbial fireballs at Romney, in terms of attack ads. I will go further to say that I find such things to be beneath his character and not in keeping with his better ethics. Regardless of that however, I would have hoped that Romney would have learned by this point that, A) politics is a contact sport, and B) how you respond to your opponent matters. How did Romney respond? By complaining and demanding an apology; Romney and the Republicans want to cry, "foul!" In the wake of Citizens United and unlimited campaign funding. In the light of endless accusations of being a socialist, of being a Kenyan, of being a Muslim (as if that is supposed to make a damned bit of difference compared to the guy that claims to have magic-fucking-underwear) and even less rational assertions, Romney and his cohort are guilty of a level of hypocrisy that leaves me utterly gob-smacked. As if this weren't bad enough in its own right, when this sort of whining is looked at relative to the attacks Romney launched against his politically weaker opponents during the primaries and the literal assault on smaller, weaker persons in his youth, the man's conduct can be seen as nothing less than detestable. I'll dismiss a hypocrite and a whiner but I hate a bully; someone who brutalizes those least able to defend themselves then cries about unfair attacks on himself is beneath contempt. He is beneath contempt and completely unsuited to leadership.
And speaking of leadership, let me take a moment to echo the thinking of a more conservative friend of mine. One of Romney's favorite talking points, what seems in fact to be his default position on an question requiring the slightest depth or consideration, is his insistence that his administration will work, confer, consult and/or cooperate (or any other synonyms you happen to have handy) with congress to address, resolve, fix and/or what-have-you whatever topically convenient ailment the nation has at the moment of conversation. Given that Romney and his cohort have made such a noise about the imagined lack of leadership in the current administration, you might think they'd have a at least a few ideas about how a Romney administration would go about fixing whatever it is that they think needs fixing. Yet, as Romney has repeatedly stated and I am here repeating and underlining, all they tell us is how they're planning to consult with congress; however necessary that may be, what it is not is leadership. Leadership means putting forward both a goal and a plan for achieving it. Romney hasn't done this and has in point of fact made something of a sport of dodging such questions and the people who have the temerity to ask them...or, again, whining about it.
To be completely fair though, Romney doesn't seem to do well when it comes to handling the big, messy, unscripted real world. When the recent attack on the embassy in Libya occurred, one had to expect that Romney would move to place himself in a position to speak about foreign affairs and the president's foreign policy. One would not even be surprised, knowing Romney as we now do, to hear him regurgitating more shallow talking points, but to start with the "apologizing for America" line again? Worse yet, doing it before Obama or the administration had actually said anything yet? Or how about the fact that he used an active, immediate, then-happening attack on Americans to take political shots at the sitting Commander in Chief?
That's not all though, oh no. It just keeps getting worse. I know I've made a point in my writings of my support for and belief in capitalism, in personal accomplishment and the general rightness of taking on the responsibility of being a citizen in a free society. If that is unclear, then allow me reiterate that point: everyone, excepting the severely disabled, is obliged to be a contributing member of society. You are not entitled to a free ride in this country. However, it would seem that Romney has managed to take a basically good and ethical ideal and pervert it into something poisonously destructive, thus revealing not only his general lack of any, slightest-fucking-clue about how life works for those of us not born into wealth and privilege, but also his basic contempt for...well, about half of the bloody country. Worse yet, and damn it I am getting tired of how it always seems to be "worse yet" with this guy, there are actually people out there trying to defend this screed and spin it. At this point, do I even need to remind you that the man has still refused to release his tax forms for his time as governor of Massachusetts or his tenure at Bain Capital? Forbes is a business publication; when its writers start to squint at financial data (as Mr. Riley does in the article sourced in the above link) its worth paying attention...especially since, as a business publication, a critical examination of Romney constitutes a certain level of evidence against interest. How about reminding you that Romney has, literally, tens of millions (that we know of, it may be more) of dollars stashed in foreign banks, yet he is supposed to be a beacon of economic ethics, confidence and enlightenment? Certainly the man claims to be some sort of great benefactor the American people by creating employment...yet, if so, why does there seem to be such controversy over the matter?
There are forty-two days until we go to the polls. At this point, I sincerely hope Romney continues to show the same sort of character he has exposed thus far, as it will all but guarantee his failure. That may sound harsh, but at the end of the day even if Fearless Leader is re-elected, we will still have to contend with Romney's political influence and positions because, at the end of the day he will still be a multimillionaire...hundreds of times over. If, on the other hand, Romney somehow manages to win the election, then I suspect that although there will likely be fewer people in the middle class shortly there after, more working poor and still more poor, homeless and unemployed...and Romney will still be a multimillionaire.
