If you're going to vote for Romney, either you must like him as a candidate, be such a die-hard Republican the candidate doesn't matter, or hate Obama so much you're rather vote for a dead skunk. (Have I missed any possibility?)
Whatever your reason, please answer for me as many of these three questions as you are able, in as much specific detail as you can muster.
What do you like about Mitt Romney that makes you want to vote for him?
What do you like about Republicans (or hate about Democrats) that make you a die-hard Republican voter?
What is there about Obama that makes you hate him so much?
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_xx_usoz_4.gif)
Friday, November 22, 2024, Joe Marangell
14 hours ago
9 comments:
I can't answer any of your questions because I will not vote for Romney. But they are good questions.
Last week I ran into someone I've known for a while, but we had never discussed politics. In a two minute tirade, he informed me that Obama is a Muslim, Socialist, and Communist and that Karl Rove is a genius. I told him I'd be voting for Obama, but didn't waste my time trying to persuade him of his erroneous thinking. Besides, for those who still believe those lies about Obama, I tend to believe the real reason they hate him is because he is black, although they would never admit it.
I am not in complete agreement with everything Obama has done, but after W (who you notice the GOP seems to have erased from memory) I don't know if I could stand 4 or 8 years of Romney/Ryan. For decades my husband and I have thought about living abroad for the adventure of it. If they win, now might be the time to make travel plans.
Being that the country is so polarized and the candidates miles apart, I can hardly believe anyone is still undecided.
Yep - well said.
Thanx,
JzB
I used to be a rather conservative Republican (not this year!), so may I take a swing at this?
Consider for a moment an American counterpart of the English yeoman -- the stalwart independent soul on whose shoulders empire and thrue prosperity of the nation rested. In American terms, the protypical yeoman is white, likely Christian, educated but not to the Ivory Tower level, married and likely with children, a home owner with some savings and a decent car, and steadily employed. He's a Jimmy Stewart sort -- or the sort of person Jimmy Stewart would give a bank loan to in a movie.
Not to belabor the point, but Republicans tend to see themselves as such yeomen. "Makers" is the current term, I gather.
There are, of course, regretfully, non-yeomen in America as well. People of lower social classes, especially black and brown and yellow skinned people. Lesbians and homosexuals and pederasts. People who don't like sports. College professors. People with incapacitating birth defects. People who don't mind losing wars. Beggers and homeless people and people who become old and ugly and have to be helped to use bedpans. People who embrace Asian religions. And on and on -- people who seem unfathomly alien to the yeomen, or frightening, or terrifying as an omen of an unpleasant future. "Takers."
Looks like Democrats to me!
I exaggerate a bit, but.... Republicans tend to see elections as Us-vs-Them contests, and as the electorate has sorted itself out between the parties the notion of ongoing events as a battle between yeomen and rabble seems to have established itself in the heads of many Republicans -- to such an extent that it doesn't have to be explained because all yeomen share the same ideas.
Now from a yeoman's viewpoint, any Democratic president is a general at the head of the rabble army. But Obama is particularly hateful (a) because he actually arose from the rabble -- dark skinned, strangely named, foreign-parented, overly educated -- and (b) even more than Bill Clinton or FDR, he has the potential of firmly tying together all elements of the rabble alliance and leading them to victory over the forces of truth, justice, and the traditional American way! And he will do this by bleeding the lifes blood of the yeomen, by taxing the money THEY MADE THEMSELVES for the benefit of people too old or too indigent to pay taxes, who will feel indebted to the Evil Cause of Barak Obama for ever and ever.
Surely, you must want to kill him also!
More soberly -- it's definitely a psychological thing rather than a purely political one. And it couldn't have happened without the degree of polarization we've seen in the parties over the past 40 years. And my thought is, Obama is only the latest focus for these hatreds -- remember how well loved Hilary Clinton was in the first administration of Bill?
After Obama, yeoman types will surely find somone else to hate. I think the only cure is to keep them out of power, and trust that with the passage of time younger and saner individuals will take their place.
Mike -
Sadly, I'm afraid you've nailed it. It comes down to a very special brand of ignorant arrogance - which is exactly my description of the Bush administration - building a fantasy of a lily-white America that never was nor could be, desperately defending itself against the OTHER.
Thanks for the comment.
JzB
Well, if I were writing an article rather than handswinging in a blog comment, I'd probably point out that a "lily-white America" isn't totally a fantsy. I spent 25 years in Los Angeles, then moved to Colorado for a couple of years, and I remember being constantly perplexed when I wandered around in Colorado Springs by the questio of "Where are all the OTHER people?" Where were blacks and Hispanics and Chinese-Americans and Sikhs and Jews and Cambodians and Armenians and all those other folk that I'd been accustomed to meeting in Southern California? And the answer is that they didn't exist in Colorado -- with the exception of some (American) Indians. Not that my Colorado neighbors were racists -- no no no! -- but that there are places outside major cities where non-whites are rare and it's easy to assume in such settings that yeoman-types make up the bulk of the population and are constantly being assailed by the rabble in distant places that that one reads about in newspapers or sees being discussed by Rush Limbaugh. Most of these places are diehard Republican.
For the record, I loved Colorado. If I had my druthers, I'd be there now.
Another very thoughtful comment. Please come back often.
Cheers!
JzB
Yes, you have missed a possibility, which is probably reflective of our polarized political environment. The choice of President isn't always about personal preference nor necessary of direct party affiliation. Sometimes it is about alignment of principals and practical expectations of what can be accomplished in a four year presidential term within the constraints of the legislative and judicial system. The latter framed my voting choices.
This is a follow-up to the prior email with hopefully less spelling mistakes. The Democratic Party has the perception of pandering to liberal social issues, i.e. immigration, woman's rights, same sex marriage, etc. I consider this to vote buying where democratic candidates gain support from special interests (groups organized on specific social issues) in exchange for promises to pursue those interests. In general I consider this to be a weakening of national moral fiber, which is a precursor to mob rule.
I am bothered by the ability of special interests groups, via undisciplined media, to distort political issues such that rational discussion cannot take place. The Susan Komen Foundation and Family Planning debate or UAW support of Matty Maroun's opposition to the International Trade Crossing are excellent examples of where special interests were able to distract and confuse the public. It is difficult for me to support the Democratic Party because I do cannot find common ground and even my willingness to compromise on issues is polarized by special interests groups. Essentially, by voting for the Democratic Party, I feel compelled to give up on my principals.
For instance, if I vote down proposals to change the Michigan constitution to add additional protections for unions then I must be a right-wing conservative pushing "right-to-work" legislation. This is not the case but I will be darned if I can have a rational conversation on this issue in my neighborhood Coney, which is mostly populated by retired UAW automotive employees. I am not necessarily against universal health care but I think it would have been more appropriate to identify means to bring down the cost of rising health care than to push legislation that might exacerbate the situation. I believe in the institution of marriage but might compromise on civil unions, depending on whether I perceived this to further weaken the family structure. In short, voting for the democratic party would push me further into hypocrisy than I can tolerate.
Alternatively, the Republican Party resonates better with my Christian views and beliefs. By virtue of having a position, conviction or religious perspective, I can then debate the merits of proposals that support or detract from this foundation. This foundation base is not something I find in the Democratic Party, other than a sense of fairness, which I believe is a primary objective of the Democratic Party. This platform is why I don't think that the Democratic Party will accomplish much in the next four years, which I may expand upon later assuming that this discussion is of any interest.
Cooljazz -
Thanks for the elaboration. I dind't knoe what to make of your first comment.
Briefly, then, your support for Romney stems from general disagreement with what you perceive as the Democratic agenda.
I am in broad disagreement with almost everything you say here, and will need some time to compose a thoughtful response.
I definitely am interested in continuing this discussion, and will probably put that up as a new post.
Thnx,
JzB
Post a Comment