?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 January 2012 @ 11:19 pm
*Seriously*, people?  

There’s a re-share going around my Facebook friends list of a billboard that says “If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you’re not a racist, vote for somebody else in 2012 to prove you’re not an idiot.” I’m not linking to it because I’m not in any hurry to give the guy who posted it originally any more traction (though to be fair I’m sure he didn’t create it, just took the picture).

I’m having a hell of a time figuring out why people are re-sharing it. Presumably because they think it’s funny, but my gut reaction to someone thinking it’s funny is, at the very least, the assumption that they’re planning to vote for someone else this fall because they think voting for Obama again would be an idiotic thing to do.

In which case, *seriously*? Because which one of the current contenders would be an improvement over Obama? The serial marriage cheater who is the only Speaker of the House to have ever been fined for ethics violations? The millionaire who buys up companies so he can tear them apart, sell off the pieces, and destroy jobs in the process? The right-wing conservative who proposed that Biblical creationism should be taught in schools as scientific fact? Or the one who thinks the Civil Rights acts that came out of the sixties are unconstitional?

Obama is not a perfect president, and he’s a disappointment to me for being much more middle-of-the-road and much less daring than I hoped he would be from the strength of his campaign. But the idea that one of the Republican contenders would do more to help individual, middle-class workers–people like me and pretty much everyone I know–get health care, find jobs, and improve the quality of their lives is outrageous.

(x-posted from the essential kit)

Tags:
 
 
 
Amandabranna on January 29th, 2012 10:36 pm (UTC)
Yes, this. Exactly this.
From Mission Impossible To MissionInfreakingsanitynot_from_stars on January 29th, 2012 10:38 pm (UTC)
I agree with you completely.
joycemocha on January 29th, 2012 10:42 pm (UTC)
I'm with you on this.
ex_rolanni on January 29th, 2012 11:06 pm (UTC)
And on a related note, I've seen Mitt Romney characterized recently as "Obama for people who are too shy to vote Democrat."

There are some...interesting viewpoints out there in the scary ol' world.
roseaponiroseaponi on January 30th, 2012 02:00 am (UTC)
O.o
I think Obama is a very nice man - but as a president, he's just not much of a leader.

I'm rather uncomfortable with the lengths the gov't goes to in order to "help" people now.

Weird fact: I'm not on WIC and I don't need it - but I'm eligible. I'd say the requirements for eligibility are a bit too broad.

Weird fact 2: because of the outbreaks of salmonella etc. in foods harvested and distributed by huge companies, the FDA is cracking down on small farms and roadside stands.

This is just stuff I come across while trying to avoid politics - it isn't a study or a thesis or anything. But overall, I just don't have much faith in the government - there's not much governing going on, but there's a lot of nannying.

I think better jobs and healthcare and quality of life are not exactly the government's sphere. I don't think I want some outside party deciding when my life is good enough and now I'd better share with somebody else. I prefer sharing of my own free will. If there aren't enough people who think that generosity is worthwhile, then that's the fault of the moral character of the country, and the gov't doesn't decide morality. The best it can do is be the donation police, and that goes against the principle of freedom America was founded on. So right now there is a good deal of overreach which is funded by loans from other countries, which is why America's economy is dragging down other economies. At least that's how I see it. I can see your point, and of course people shouldn't suffer and should have a safety net, but at bottom I have a fundamental disagreement over what the government's job is, and the size of the net it can support.
(long post is long... Sorry)
Geek of Weird Shit: fireygows on January 30th, 2012 05:17 am (UTC)
It's the same sort of thought process I have when people bitch about Obama now. Yes, he's not been the leader I hoped he'd be (side note: there's a website called "What the Fuck Has Obama Done?" that rotates the progressive laws he's passed, etc.), but I'm so much happier to have him in the driver's seat than the competition (VP Palin? Srsly?)

Besides . . . President Mittens? O.o
Sinanjusinanju on January 30th, 2012 05:27 am (UTC)
"Which of the current contenders would be an improvement over Obama?"

Any of them. As bad as any of them would be, they couldn't possibly be worse than Obama.
Cynssha on January 30th, 2012 07:31 am (UTC)
Would you, perhaps, share with me/us the criteria by which you make that judgement?

I honestly don't get what people are so disappointed about. It would be good to hear/see a concrete list of his perceived screw-ups.

All I hear about at this point is the Iraq war, which people seem to talk about as if he is at fault for starting it. He promised to end it during his term; he has. Where is the beef with that?

So, yeah, I'd like to know what I'm missing.
Al Pettersoneyelessgame on January 30th, 2012 08:30 pm (UTC)
I have a number of old friends from high school who are lifelong conservatives. I've seen some of their rants... so let me present what I understand to be their positions, omitting the obviously factually wrong, and without implying any agreement with or endorsement of these positions:

They tend to blame Obama for the continued poor economy.

They believe that the ARRA was poor policy, in that they disagree with the consensus of mainstream economists who say it averted a worse recession.

They believe that the ACA is poor policy - specifically, they dislike the individual mandate, as well as (unspecified, but apparently onerous) accompanying new regulations that, so it is asserted, prevent employers from hiring.

They disagree with his policy to oppose lowering taxes on the wealthy.

There is, in addition to this, a ton of fantasy ("socialist" is one example) which falls into the category of the Chewbacca defense - I'm unable to counter it, or even rephrase it in my own words, because I cannot make sense of most of it at all.
Cynssha on January 31st, 2012 11:49 am (UTC)
Really?

Point #1: They don't blame their own successful attempts to block him from doing anything productive at every. single. step of the way?

Point #2: ARRA?

Point #3: ACA?

Point #4: Right. Because the poor should totally pay for bailouts when the rich do stupid shit and cause themselves to go broke.

Point #5: Yeah, I've read all of the Tea Party bullshit ad nauseam. No one appears to be able to write about anything else, whether for or against, when it comes to politics.

Also? One you didn't mention: Why are they blaming /Obama/ for not ending the Iraq war sooner? He ended it in his FIRST term! And let's recall, he INHERITED the clusterfuck; he didn't create it. It's been going on for over 10 years; since long before he was president. He's not the one who decided to start a war he had no idea how to fight based on falsified 'intelligence' (I use the word loosely) in order to avenge his daddy.
Al Pettersoneyelessgame on January 31st, 2012 09:28 pm (UTC)

#1: They don't see it as "blocking." They see it as "preserving America from a radical socia1ist agenda." The Chewbacca gets strong in this argument from here - see "mainstream economists".

#2: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - AKA "the stimulus package", the 2009 $300B spending/$480B tax cut, made when all the mainstream economists knew it was too small but the assurance was that they could pass another one if it didn't prove to be enough. That one.

#3: Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". Health insurance reform. (I try to call things by their real names.)

I haven't heard conservatives blame the President for ending Iraq too slowly; I've mostly heard them "blaming" him for ending it "badly" and not leaving more troops behind and so on. We and they are in totally different bubbles.

GWB has disappeared down the memory hole. I have not heard a conservative bring him up in the last three years.

If Romney winds up president in 2013 he'll be like the dog that caught the car. In an nation being progressively more damaged through inability to act, he'll have won with a mandate to do nothing.

("socia1ist" spelling because the word contains within it the name of a drug that triggers many spam filters)
Cynssha on February 1st, 2012 06:50 pm (UTC)
So... companies not having to foot the bill for their employees' healthcare benefits somehow hurts them? Us? Insurance companies (who can go suck a fat, warty one, btw)?

Wow... the insensibility of anti-Obama-ists (for lack of a better term) never ceases to amaze me. The only troubling part is that there is a significant contingent of Americans who buys into what they're saying.

RE: Romney - or the proverbial 'deer in headlights'; yes.

Also: I was wondering on the 'social1st' thing, and it took me a moment to spot it, even after I saw the bit about spam filters. The only problem there is that a lot of spammers are now spelling it with the 1, so a lot of spam filters are adapting to that.
ex_rolanni on January 30th, 2012 02:08 pm (UTC)
Can you tell me how Rick Santorum would be better than Obama?

I already know that Newt is better than Obama because Newt's multiple marriages demonstrate a commitment to the institution that a man who has only been married once can't hope to demonstrate.

And Mitt Romney is better than Obama because he was the one who came up with the template for "ObamaCare" and applied it to Massachusetts. Oh, because he pays a whopping 13.x% in income tax.

And Ron Paul is better -- could you explain that, one, too? I think I'm rocky on that theory.

Mr. Obama has not been the leader I'd hoped he'd be when I voted for him in 2008. But as far as I can see, unless the Republicans can produce a candidate who isn't one of the four still squabbling, Mr. Obama is going to be the only grown-up in the race.

Al Pettersoneyelessgame on January 30th, 2012 08:31 am (UTC)
Ya know what?

Somebody who voted for Obama in 2008 *just* to prove they're not racist?

They're racist.

Which means they're an idiot. And they'll still be an idiot regardless of who they vote for this time.

I voted for him because he was a damn sight better than the other guy.

I'm voting for him again for the same reason.
Cynssha on February 1st, 2012 09:12 pm (UTC)
Amen.