PC's Endorsement: Barack Obama for President

 I'm not under the illusion that I have some sort of influence on voters, nor do I believe that the people reading this are somehow unaware of my political beliefs, but I'm making it official: this Tuesday, November 6th, I am recommending that you vote for President Barack Obama.

There are a number of reasons I support Obama, some of which have to do with what he has done well (ending Don't Ask/Don't Tell, beginning the pullout in Iraq, tracking down Osama bin Laden, passing health care reform, supporting marriage equality, etc.) and others of which have to do with the alternative to a second Obama administration: a Mitt Romney administration.

I know a number of reasonable Republicans, some of whom I count as dear friends, the kind of friends you would trust to raise your kids if you and your spouse were cut down in the prime of life by carnivorous animals or something. It pains me to see that their party seemingly no longer values them or their best qualities: their fondness for considered debate before major changes, their love of tradition, and their respect for the rule of law. Instead, the GOP has embraced a collection of radicals who seem to seek nothing less than the gutting of all government offices except those promoting military and religious adventurism. These nouveau Republicans will support the invasion of absolutely anything--a sovereign country, a wildlife refuge, a science classroom, or a vagina--in order to advance their partisan interests, and they will protest having to chip in a single dollar that does not directly advance those interests. They will even turn against the Republicans who have shepherded their party for decades--Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, for example--if those shepherds hesitate to support such invasions.

Needless to say, I view the prospect of such a party having a grip on the Executive Branch with no small amount of alarm--an alarm not unlike the kind I felt from, oh, November of 2000 until January of 2009. But even if I trusted the current leadership of the GOP to put the good of the country ahead of the good of the party--which would be like trusting locusts to put next year's harvest ahead of this year's opportunities for plaguing--there would still be the problem of Mitt Romney.

Romney's judgment, or lack thereof, is something I have found worrisome ever since I first heard of his attempt to transport his dog to Canada via cartop carrier. This has nothing to do with his political positions and everything to do with a very basic understanding of cause and effect; a man who cannot understand the downside of strapping a dog to a car roof for several hundred miles is a not a man I want considering the downside of invading Iran. This is a man who as a responsible adult, a husband, a parent, and a pet owner, and one with enormous personal and family wealth to boot, apparently never considered renting a larger vehicle in which he could fit his dog. What will he fail to consider when it comes to dealing with the North Koreans?

But even outside the issue of judgment, Romney's campaign has left me feeling, to put it mildly, insulted. And judging by the Washington Post's editorial from yesterday morning, I'm not the only one.

THROUGH ALL THE flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate...

How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds.

Even if I wanted one of today's Republican leaders in office, I would balk at the option of voting for this one. How could I be sure Romney would actually support the principles of my party or my nation when he seems unwilling to support any of them (with one glaring exception) over time?

And the one exception? A desire to cut taxes. Period. Not a desire to reduce the deficit, or cut spending, or get rid of entitlements--just a desire to lower taxes, and particularly those for the wealthy. In fact, given the hypothetical scenario of a budget that would cut ten dollars in spending in exchange for a one-dollar increase in taxes, Romney (and every other GOP presidential candidate) refused to offer his support; if it involves more taxes, no matter what good it will do the country, it is anathema.

In short, I have no faith in the current Republican party or its nominee. I can name a number of areas where I have been unhappy with the President--the indiscriminate use of drone strikes against innocent civilians (and even American citizens), the continuing blight of Guantanamo Bay's internment program, the ongoing idiocy of the War on Drugs--but I have at least seen some evidence that he is willing to do what he says he will do. For that alone, he earns my endorsement for the 2012 election.

If my opinion matters to you, please support President Obama this Tuesday. Even if it doesn't matter to you, please support him.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PC's Endorsement: Barack Obama for President.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.petercashwell.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/308

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Peter Cashwell published on November 3, 2012 11:13 AM.

Seems Appropriate... was the previous entry in this blog.

Election Night: A Summary is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0