Anyone but Obama

[everglade carl]

As a moderate, which officially puts me on the left side of the spectrum in today's political climate, I have a question that is not meant to antagonize conservatives or invite bashing on Mitt Romney: I hear conservatives often bandy around the phrase, "Anyone butt Obama" when talking about about a Republican candidate that they might support. The tone given is usually so harsh that it makes me think he's the worst president in our history. Why so extreme? Why not, "I fall towards voting Republican but I'm waiting to see if the economy improves" or some other more seemingly open-minded response. Please save your response if you answer with conspiracy theories, radical muslim and terrorist ties. Rational conservatives, please tell me, in a economy that hasn't lost any jobs under Obama's presidency, is pretty hawkish in foreign policy, with a rising economy, successful bailouts of Detroit's car industry, has made more deportations than any past president, and is not only consolidating government by combining agencies, but shrinking the the amount of government workers. He saw through the exit of troops from Iraq, even though I know it's partly due to the agreement set in place. I can understand that a president in the middle will draw ire from both liberals and conservatives for not governing straight down party lines, but geez, with a congress that has publicly declared that their mission is to stop him at every turn, hasn't he been not only suprisingly pro-active in 3 years but pretty true to his campaign pledges of health care, catching Osama Bin Laden, and leaving Iraq. He was elected under that mandate. I seem to hear an angry contempt your criticism like he was the most left-leaning socialist wanna-be dictator. Conservatives, I ask again: Please help me see why "Anyone but Obama" is so many of your viewpoints? I ask this sincerely.

[everglade carl]

whoops: not "anyone butt Obama"- geez!

[East Detroit]

1. Party before country. Mindless followers of their "side."

2. Obama is black. It was a miracle that he got in. The miracle being that George W Bush was a complete and utter failure and people were desperate enough to go to the other "side."

[firstandten]

Among Repubs since it is about winning elections it would be "anyone but [[name of your favorite Dem President) " Obama just simply has the title right now.

Among the smaller minded of us the race card or the socialist card can be played often with great success. The facts however just don't bare that out, But now days when has facts gotten in the way of a good story.

In many ways a lot of things came together to even give a man like Obama a chance to win in 2008. Economic policies that mostly Repubs put into place since Reagan came back to bite us. Military policies that Bush put into place in his first term made us wonder why we were still fighting wars. A really bad campaign team put together by Hilary, and a really good one put together by Obama, as well as his ability to come across to people not as an Sharpton or Jackson made it possible for him to get elected.

Obama represents the ultimate challenge for Repubs who haven't been able to create a scandal to stick with him. has stuck to most of his campaign pledges [[for those who want to argue that check the fact check websites) and turns out he's a hawk militarily.

So it pains the Repubs that they will have to turn to the man most like Obama [[Romney) in order to beat him. However by the time they get to Tampa they will suck it up throw their support behind him because its all about anybody but Obama.

[bartock]

This is ridiculous. There are party-mongers on both sides who say "anybody but...." when their party is not in office.

The race thing...uh, whatever. I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against President Obama because he is black is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for President Obama because he is black [[he received 96% of the AA vote in the last election...).

[Zacha341]

Well stated. And the Black voter percentage will drop this time as well as the democratic voters in general a bit there. President Obama may be fairly teflon but he has his detractors even within the er' party [[democrats). The economy is not going to help him... and the blame "Bush" thing got old after a while.

...The race thing...uh, whatever. I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against President Obama because he is black is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for President Obama because he is black [[he received 96% of the AA vote in the last election...).

[Zacha341]

Here's an interesting Newsweek article both sides of the fence and the middle may find interesting re. president Obama:

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.

You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

Article continues: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html

[Occurrence]

I'm down for a change as long as it's anyone but Romney. That goofy Mormon should not be in the White House.

[firstandten]

I posted a link to a Washington Post article in another thread about judging a President solely on the economy. The most influence that a president has on the economy is determining if the policies put into place will have an effect over time. I would liken turning the economy around to turning an aircraft carrier around 180 degrees... its going to take awhile. However if you base your policies on economic principles that have been proven to work over time things should get better. I think thats where the president is now. The policies are and have been put into place, the recovery will be slow but it should be lasting.

Now thats not good if you're dealing with political cycles, it might hurt your chances for re-election but its the right thing to do.

[vetalalumni]

...The race thing...uh, whatever. I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against President Obama because he is black is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for President Obama because he is black [[he received 96% of the AA vote in the last election...).

[[1) Do you believe your assertion would still be accurate if altered as follows [["small percentage" changed to "quantity")?

I tend to think that the quantity of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against President Obama because he is black is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for President Obama because he is black [[he received 96% of the AA vote in the last election...).


[[2) Would the following be accurate as well? Why, or why not?

I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against the Republican nominee because he is white is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for the Republican nominee because he is white.

I'm down for a change as long as it's anyone but Romney. That goofy Mormon should not be in the White House.

[[3) Or, if Romney is the the Republican nominee,

I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against Romney because he is Mormon is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for Romney because he is Mormon.

[oladub]

I don't quite fit into you category of someone who would vote for anyone but Obama. I'm a Paul supporter, fiscally conservative but otherwise libertarian with constitutionalist overtones, but would vote for Romney, am undecided about Gingrich but would not vote for Perry, Santorum, or Obama under any circumstances. I don't think that Obama is the worst president in our history but perhaps is in the bottom quartile with W. Bush. I'm surprised you think that we haven't lost any jobs under Obama, don't recognize that Obama tried to negotiate an extension of US troop presence in Iraq or Obama's more recent efforts to promote the interests of illegal aliens, and nothing but trillion dollar deficits in sight to eke out the appearance of a rising economy. Guessing you are a big centralized government buff, I wouldn't expect you even consider market solutions to the ailing US car industry or lower health care costs but that's a different paradyne.

I don't think that Obama is " the most left-leaning socialist wanna-be dictator." He is, in my opinion, more like Bush; a corporatist front man with occasional dictator like proclivities. Case in point; bombing the capitol of a foreign nation without a declaration of war or or even so much as consulting Congress... and even outside of the NATO charter's rules of attack. That said, McCain, Santorum, Perry, and possibly Gingrich might even be worse.

[firstandten]

Oladub you don't consider Romney to be a corporatist ? I would think he would be one of the biggest ones out there.

[rb336]

I'm down for a change as long as it's anyone but Romney. That goofy Mormon should not be in the White House.

so you'd be ok with the hateful "born again," the nutcase wife of a closeted gay man, the idiot from Texas, the disattached neoliberterian or the serial philanderer? Anything but a Mormon

[bartock]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=[I]vetalalumni;297442][[1) Do you believe your assertion would still be accurate if altered as follows [["small percentage" changed to "quantity")?

I tend to think that the quantity of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against President Obama because he is black is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for President Obama because he is black [[he received 96% of the AA vote in the last election...).

[/I][QUOTE]


Yes, I do. Absolutely. That is why I phrased the comparison the way I phrased it.

[[2) Would the following be accurate as well? Why, or why not?

I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against the Republican nominee because he is white is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for the Republican nominee because he is white.

No. See Zacha's post.

3) Or, if Romney is the the Republican nominee,

I tend to think that the small percentage of uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote against Romney because he is Mormon is offset by uninformed and agenda-driven "voters" who will vote for Romney because he is Mormon.

Yes, this is a much better parallel.

[bartock]

Here's an interesting Newsweek article both sides of the fence and the middle may find interesting re. president Obama:

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.

You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

Article continues: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html

Great article. Right at the beginning sort of sums up my earlier points - "And, yes, this is not exactly unusual."

[Whitehouse]

Let me tell you what will happen. And this is coming from an outsider from The Netherlands.

Ever since he has come to power the Republican party has done nothing except being a spoke in the wheel of the Obama administration. It was their way or the highway. If a Republican comes to power you might as well build an Ark of Noah for yourself....

First thing that will be done is overturn every Supreme court decision that doesn't suit their agenda. All abortion laws will go out of the window, kiss goodbye to every getting a chance to unionise, you will see your pay check go down the drain in favour of the 1% and shareholders.
Last time a Republican was in the White House wasn't a great success. GWB sowed the seeds of the financial crisis by giving Wall Street a blank check to fuck up the system. Obama at least tries to right some of those wrongs by appointing a man in the Consumer protection agency, an act of war according to Republicans....

And then there's their ally God. Believe me [[pun intended), I'm not against religion. Far from it. Everyone has the right to believe in anything. Be it God, Allah or the flying Spaghetti Monster. But I don't like it when someone forces religion on me. And God is big in Republican Lala-Land. The LGBT are in as much danger as Buffalo's in the 19th century. No protection at all. I'm not gay but if you are, that's fine with me. If you want to marry or adopt, fine, no problem. But all seven [[or it's six now maybe) GOP candidates in the race for the White House [[and this is a Dutch proverb) have been smacked by a windmill, which translates as being completely Cookoo.

And don't get me started about the Republican war against Science and education. The Bible comes first and that means Evolution theory goes out of the window, forgetting that the Bible is also a theory. Earth made in 6000 years??! then there's their war on the Global Warming issue.

Headache all around now.....

There a much more points to be made but I hope this will make you see that voting for the GOP will be shooting yourself in the foot. I know the Democrats are not perfect at all but they tried to make some policy work.

Weren't it for the party of no.

I'm down for a change as long as it's anyone but Romney. That goofy Mormon should not be in the White House.

That's another thing. Still religion being a factor. I don't think you should judge Romney for being a Mormon. He's just a flip flopper, saying anything to please everyone. The best description of Romney would be this picture:






And then there a people who want to deny Obama his track record. Unless you're a Republican monkey you will acknowledge that he did took the decision to kill Osama Bin Laden, he saved the auto industry and [[the bulk of) the troops left Iraq.

[firstandten]

I don't think that Obama is the worst president in our history but perhaps is in the bottom quartile with W. Bush. .

I don't know if history will see it that way. I've looked at various lists comparing presidents and one problem with comparing presidents is that often they set policies that for the moment looked like they were not effective, but years sometimes decades later as a result of those policies the country was better off and a re-evaluation of that president raised the rating. I see this happening to Obama, the things he has done may have not made people happy in the short term but he is setting a foundation that will make the country better off long term. Bush on the other hand , because he took a short cut to governing [[govern off a war time economy that he created) his effects will be felt in a negative sense for a long time to come.

[vetalalumni]

I don't quite fit into you category of someone who would vote for anyone but Obama. I'm a Paul supporter, fiscally conservative but otherwise libertarian with constitutionalist overtones, but would vote for Romney, am undecided about Gingrich but would not vote for Perry, Santorum, or Obama under any circumstances. I don't think that Obama is the worst president in our history but perhaps is in the bottom quartile with W. Bush. I'm surprised you think that we haven't lost any jobs under Obama, don't recognize that Obama tried to negotiate an extension of US troop presence in Iraq or Obama's more recent efforts to promote the interests of illegal aliens, and nothing but trillion dollar deficits in sight to eke out the appearance of a rising economy. Guessing you are a big centralized government buff, I wouldn't expect you even consider market solutions to the ailing US car industry or lower health care costs but that's a different paradyne.

I don't think that Obama is " the most left-leaning socialist wanna-be dictator." He is, in my opinion, more like Bush; a corporatist front man with occasional dictator like proclivities. Case in point; bombing the capitol of a foreign nation without a declaration of war or or even so much as consulting Congress... and even outside of the NATO charter's rules of attack. That said, McCain, Santorum, Perry, and possibly Gingrich might even be worse.

Romney is not as perfect as Ron Paul.

[rb336]

The video begs the question: Is a threatened attack on our commerce an attack on us? I think so

[TKshreve]

I've grown very stubborn to the tired conservative concept of:

"Well, I'll vote for him/her because they stand the best chance of beating Obama in a general election."

So that's how you cast your vote? Not on a platform of ideas and principals, but on if a person can beat Obama in November. How small and misguided. Way to have your priorities straight.

Come November, just stay home and do us all a favor.

[[Heard this on NPR from a caller and couldn't agree more)

[Occurrence]

so you'd be ok with the hateful "born again," the nutcase wife of a closeted gay man, the idiot from Texas, the disattached neoliberterian or the serial philanderer? Anything but a Mormon

Nope. I support Ron Paul.

[rb336]

Nope. I support Ron Paul.

ah, the detached neolibertarian

ok, maybe not. he is far too extreme in his dogmatism to be one

[Occurrence]

Well, he's no crazier than all the other candidates on both sides. He seems to be the only one who's interested in fiscal responsibility, defending personal liberties, and not sending our troops overseas where they don't belong.

[firstandten]

I hope everyone reads the article that Zacha341 linked in post 7. It is one of the better articles explaining his political style. His is a style that takes some getting use to since most politicans are

too caught up in the news cycle catering to the "what have you done for me lately folks"

Taking the long view is a risky strategy in todays political arena. People may call you detached or not engaged in the process as he has been called just recently.


The article was especially relevent to those on the left moreso than those on the right.


I will be fascinated to see how this election cycle will play out and the strategies Obama will employ since Obama is running on his record rather than on a promise, and how Mitt will attack Obama and most importantly will it work ?

[vetalalumni]

For the mitted -

Mitt Romney Pretends He's Clueless About NDAA, Then War Mongers
http://www.dailypaul.com/203217/mitt...en-war-mongers
Submitted by AbrahamNorway on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 09:25

Woman asks Mitt Romney about his opinion regarding NDAA. Romney pretends he doesn't know about it, says he would post an analysis on his website [[which he never did), and then war mongers in order to scare clueless Americans into giving up their civil liberties to big government.

During tonight's Fox/WSJ debate, Romney again supported NDAA 2012.