What really scares me is that I see Romney’s lack of principles as one of his virtues. I look at Santorum and Paul and Cain and Bachmann - and I’ve been more worried about the principles they have than the ones Romney lacks.
I agree OP is wrong, but let’s not insult him by suggesting he’d actually vote for a Republican. :smack:
I think he intends to vote for Donald Duck or somebody and justify it on grounds that this won’t lead to Obama losing, since one little vote doesn’t matter anyway. But if one vote really doesn’t matter, why this strange urge to cast it against Obama?
America’s enemies really do make evil plans, and to desert the Middle East would have bad consequences. Obama’s credentials for liberties and sane foreign policy are strong. Why turn against him if his tough job has made him more pragmatic?
I really don’t give much of a damn about his record. The alternative is a Republican, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let one of them take office if I can legally help it.
But in reality, Obama has done quite well given the hand he was dealt.
It is indefensible to target “suspected terrorists” for death, period. That includes Apache pilots murdering civilians trying to rescue the journalists they just shot and the CIA murdering sixteen year old activists with drones when they try to raise awareness of the CIA’s indiscriminate use of drones.
What cases do you mean by this?
And drone strikes are far more less likely to cause collateral damage than regular aerial bombardment, missile strikes, or artillery shelling. Indeed there is almost nothing to complain about Obama with regards to foreign policy (except perhaps for some of his disputes with Israel).
The 2007 killing of Saeed Chmagh, Namir Noor-Eldeen and others; and the 2011 killing of Tariq Khan.
His civil liberties record is pretty dismal. He’s been pretty good on foreign policy. Still, they’re both better than what I’d expect from Romney.
My attitude to the Obama Administration is more or less what I expected it to be: meh. I would have voted for him in 2008 if I had a vote (and would have been thrilled to do so, despite my lukewarm reaction to his policy positions).
On the other hand, my attitude to all of the candidates left in the Republican primary is ew, so I’d vote for Obama in 2012.
It is certainly true that there are a lot of Americans with short attention spans who won’t be satisfied with anything he does. However, I’m not asking him micromanage all world affairs in a particular way. What I’d like to see is for him to take a principled stance of reducing America’s military role in far away places. I’d be happy if he simply said something like this:
“Over the past few decades the United States the United States military and the CIA have been involved in bringing down governments and setting up others all over the world, in a process we often call ‘nation-building’. As of today, I am limiting the role of the military and the CIA to national defense, as described in the Constitution.”
Then actually do it.
A bit off topic but regrading this..
Why did you choose this as an example rather than Bushes original election? Even if all the Greens in 2004 voted for Kerry instead of Bush, bush still would have won. But in 2000 if just 1% of the Nader vote had gone to Gore in Florida, we wouldn’t have had the Iraq war.
At least he’s not a Republican. I’m decreeing that the Republican Party is not to be permitted to win another presidential election.
Or an eighth the shit, had he been a zero-term president.
I feel really good about his foreign-policy record and really bad about his civil-liberties record.
Agreed. If we have to have a two-party system to make this work, let it be the Democrats vs. the Socialists.
I’d be happier with a Republican Party that deserved to win a presidential election.
Assuming you’d have these two parties with approximately the same platforms they now have, you’ll end up with a one-party government. Given the choice between the current Democrats and the current Socialists, the majority of voters are going to pick the Democrats every time.
What would realistically happen is you’d see the Socialists moving towards the center to get their candidates elected and meeting the Democrats there. There’d be a little jostling for unreached voters and you’d end up with essentially the same two parties we have now under new names.
Third party advocates hate to admit this. They’re not out of power because the system is rigged against them. They’re out of power because the majority of people don’t want them to be in power. The only way third parties like the Socialists or the Libertarians or the Greens or the Natural Law party will ever get into power would be to abandon elections and just start assigning political offices to whatever parties we think should be in power.
Well said!
Most people who say that the two parties are the same and that the country is hungering for an alternative erroneously assume that the alternative will espouse the platform that they support. While it is true that if there was the option, “none of the above” might possible win an election, it doesn’t mean that any individual alternative platform has any real public support.
The possible exception to this is the public distaste and congressional love for well-heeled lobbyists. But as long as money buys campaign ads and the public are influenced by such ads that isn’t going to change.
It’s also a symptom of the distribution of seats. Given proportional representation divorced from geography, a greater number of third party politicians would be in power. It’s the case axiomatically (because there are third party votes even in a first-past-the-post system) and in countries that actually practice proportional representation. That doesn’t mean that they’d be in a majority, but to say that the two parties in Congress adequately represent the sentiments of their voters seems to be a feat of apologetics.
If voters were actually expressed to third party sentiments rather than seeing debates framed by the two parties, voters may realise just how much they agree with the third party and how wide the political spectrum really is.
Edit: For example, would the Labour party or a European democratic socialist party be completely hamstrung if running against the Republican party? They’re significantly to the left of the Democrats, but given the same capacity to launch a public appeal, surely they’d be a credible alternative?
The alternative is proposing that not only the political parties are further to the right of Europe, but that the voting populace is too.
Which I’m pretty sure is demonstrably the case, as shown by every poll ever. But I agree with everything else you said.
I feel mixed about his foreign-policy record and really bad about his civil-liberties records.
I have often stated that I feel he came into office lacking experience and vision (and guts) in foreign policy and security and let the military/security complex set policy for him, rather than him setting policy. In regards to civil-liberties I think he falls into the trap of calculating that the individual cases are politically trivial (rather than applying a higher set of principals) and that he can absorb the blows from his own supporters politically.
However, I will vote for him again because I see his policies (essentially acquiescence to internal forces) as less destructive than the Republican tendency to gleefully enact overtly antagonistic policies.