Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[sbr]

[Ed Anger]

 

[derspiess]

  I miss film strips.

[Eddie Teach]

You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.

WATCH IT SUCKA

Brak could have done soooooo much better.

He had several white girlfriends. Was Michelle is first and only black woman?

She's looking at you, CDM.

[CountDeMoney]

Alright, that does it.

[Sheilbh]

All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency.  He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there. 

So he's Obama?

I don't think so.  As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President.  The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base.  Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state.  But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination.  I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney.  He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).

If anything I think Obama's got the opposite problem.  That weird role of Valerie Jarrett as his conscience in the White House prodding him into being this 'transformational' figure.  The view I have, and many Brits (including the Spectator and many Tories) share, is that he's a Tory President.  He reminds me of a pragmatic, one nation Tory and that 'no drama Obama' line reminds me of the sign MacMillan put on his office door, 'quiet, calm deliberations disentangles every knot'.  In terms of Presidents he most reminds me of GHW Bush - and I mean that as a compliment and as with Bush I think the Economist's right that history will rate him more highly.  But I think this niggling left-liberal whinging has led him into a position where he's running as, and looks like, a disappointing left-wing President rather than, in my view, what he is which is a relatively successful centrist President. 

You see this every time when the White House position starts as ultimately pretty centrist - healthcare reform or stimulus for example - then the left get excited and the White House nudge and wink at them.  The rhetoric gets a bit more strident.  Then everyone starts to think they're going to be more bold and ideological.  Then they ultimately get, roughly, the centrist proposals they initially made.  The left feel disappointed and everyone else feels that the White House were pushing for something far more radical than it was.  It's baffling.

I would add that I agree with OvB.  I've always thought lefties who moan about Obama disappointing weren't paying attention  during the campaign.  They were over-excited by the campaign and the fact that he was black to realise that he was roughly were Clinton was and, on some issues (such as healthcare) to her left.  The real liberal candidate was Edwards.  The one significant exception to that in my view are civil libertarians who have been entirely betrayed and let down and are justified in their anger.

[derspiess]

I don't think so.  As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President.  The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base.  Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state.  But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination.  I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney.  He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).

100% wishful thinking on your part.  Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home.  Obama would win in a landslide.

[Sheilbh]

100% wishful thinking on your part.  Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home.  Obama would win in a landslide.

They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.

Also I'd note that Mitt's biggest critics during the primary were the sort of 'voices of the base', rather than NYT columnist conservatives like Brooks and Douthat.  Since he's become the nominee that's been reversed.  Also in states were the more moderate, non-Tea Party candidate has won the primary generally the Tea Party and base have swung behind them.  I see no reason why that wouldn't happen on a national level with an opponent they dislike as fiercely as Obama.

In addition, of course, a moderate Republican like Mitt in the last few weeks or like Huntsman would be winning independent and centrist votes, maybe dissatisfied Democrats - who knows even some Latinos.

[Sheilbh]

As a total aside the way the Republican Right has primaried candidates and taken over the House really reminds me of entryist Trots like Militant Faction in Labour in the 80s.  I think there needs to be blood on the carpet at the next Republican convention.

[Phillip V]

All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency.  He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there. 

So he's Obama?

If anything I think Obama's got the opposite problem.  That weird role of Valerie Jarrett as his conscience in the White House prodding him into being this 'transformational' figure.  The view I have, and many Brits (including the Spectator and many Tories) share, is that he's a Tory President.  He reminds me of a pragmatic, one nation Tory and that 'no drama Obama' line reminds me of the sign MacMillan put on his office door, 'quiet, calm deliberations disentangles every knot'.  In terms of Presidents he most reminds me of GHW Bush - and I mean that as a compliment and as with Bush I think the Economist's right that history will rate him more highly.  But I think this niggling left-liberal whinging has led him into a position where he's running as, and looks like, a disappointing left-wing President rather than, in my view, what he is which is a relatively successful centrist President.

I like centrist and moderate. The question is whether it is well-managed moderation or mediocre moderation.

-Universal healthcare is great. But is there cost control?
-War in Afghanistan was justified. But what will this quick tripling of troops and soon quick pullback accomplish?
-There was/is a need for stimulus. But are the projects and recipients well-chosen and distributed to?

[Kleves]

You may not like what he delivered, whether it was healthcare reform or the way he recapitalized the banks or the mini-stim of 2010, but he's delivered on what he's said to deliver, as much as he's been able to, considering today's Congress.

None of those are the reason Obama is running today, or why he ran in '08. Healthcare was Hillary's thing that Obama got pushed into during the primary (IIRC). TARP was Bush's. Frankly, I don't know what Obama wants to do with a second term, other than he wants to keep being President and has put out some small ideas that poll-tested well to accomplish that.

[Kleves]

Of course, small ideas that poll-test well might be better than Mitt's batshit crazy ideas, but that's a different conversation.

[Ed Anger]

I have the feeling that Obama is going to be nearly worthless in his second term. Yes children, I think he is gonna win.

[Sheilbh]

You like centrist and moderate but you're supporting a candidate whose policy positions are neither.  I don't believe that there's a real Mitt who is actually a conviction moderate who would pass universal healthcare, but better; manage Afghanistan, but better; do stimulus, but better.  In my view if he's not his views are very conservative, if he is then he's been lying constantly for these past six years and doesn't deserve to be in office.

To take those points by turn:
1 - Yes there is cost control, such as the death panels and the cut in Medicare being campaigned against by the Republicans.  I'd also point to every other developed country all of which have some form of universal healthcare or other (Obamacare most resembles the Swiss system) and all of which have far lower healthcare inflation than the US.  In addition Romney passed universal healthcare in his state and, in 2008, when it was a big issue he proposed it as a model for the nation.  Now it is he has literally no healthcare policy beyond repealing Obamacare.  So the Republican line is actually universal healthcare isn't great.  End it now and replace it with...nothing.
2 -I think withdrawal is inevitable and it's only a matter of time.  The war in Afghanistan was justified - I'm not sure that much more post-war operations are if we're able to disrupt al-Qaeda and their allies sufficiently that they can't establish and attack again.  We're at the point where no-one wants to be the last soldier to die (at the hands of an Afghan army soldier, no doubt) to keep Karzai in power.  Personally I prefer Biden's policy of immediate withdrawal with long-term counter-terrorism presence to Obama's of surge, withdraw, counter-terrorism.  But I think both a preferable to Romney's policy of maintaining this war, as far as I can see, indefinitely.
3 - The candidate you support opposed and opposes stimulus entirely.  My view is that the stimulus package was badly designed to get bipartisan support - most of it was tax cuts, for example - and too small for the same reason.

Look I wish Obama was running against someone I believed to be a real moderate (Huntsman ) or a real populist conservative (Huckabee ), but I don't think he is.  He's running against a very conservative candidate - on every one of those issues you just raised - or a shameless liar.

None of those are the reason Obama is running today, or why he ran in '08. Healthcare was Hillary's thing that Obama got pushed into during the primary (IIRC). TARP was Bush's. Frankly, I don't know what Obama wants to do with a second term, other than he wants to keep being President and has put out some small ideas that poll-tested well to accomplish that.

You don't remember correctly.  Healthcare was the big issue of the Democratic primary.  It was Edwards' thing.  He published a very in depth proposal - single payer I think - which effectively bounced all of the candidates into producing proposals (Obama's, with two exceptions one stolen from Hillary, one stolen from McCain, was broadly what Obamacare is).  But it was a big issue that all Democrat candidates campaigned on heavily and used in a big way in the general election until Lehman's collapsed.

What's more striking is that every Republican had a healthcare policy and it was repeatedly discussed at their debates too and the main issue was access for the uninsured.  Time's have changed.

I'd add TARP was Bush's but passed by Democrats in Congress (I think McCain's best moment was not demagoguing this) despite its potential unpopularity.  But I think Bush, Pelosi and Paulson deserve a lot of credit.  In terms of Obama I think an understated element of the US recovery - which has still been the strongest - is the Geithner stress tests which restored the credibility of US banks in a way that still hasn't happened in Europe.  It's interesting at the time the stress tests were seen as too little, but since they seem to be more appreciated.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course, small ideas that poll-test well might be better than Mitt's batshit crazy ideas, but that's a different conversation.

Yes, it is.  It's certainly driving my vote.