Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[Josquius]

Rather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.

Pretty sane reason to vote for Obama.

Its just crazy how the republicans are getting away with how much of the mess is their fault. Obama has tried to fix the mess they made but they tried to stop him and now they expect people to vote for them? Eh?

[derspiess]

[garbon]

I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.

[Berkut]

Berk, if you ever get a chance to vote for president for the "right" reasons, I'll be shocked.

McCain 2000!

<sob>

You're probably right.

[Berkut]

I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.

He is fundamentally correct in this case though.

[Valmy]

I"ll vote for Romney because Obama and I are just too far apart on economic issues and too far apart on how we look at the role of government.

I'll also say that as a conservative Republican that spent years defending much of Bush's activity during the GWOT in some ways Obama has actually gotten scarier on the civil liberties front than Bush did. I was a long view kind of guy on the USA PATRIOT Act and stuff like that. I've read my history, I know that during times of existential threat, the Civil War, World War II, the early stages of the Cold War, America has a tendency to give civil liberties short shrift. But in the long run, we have a strongly democratic and civil libertarian culture. The excesses of Lincoln and Roosevelt were mostly a product of tough times and were reined in to a large degree after their Presidencies were over.

Near the end of Bush's term I felt we had reached that point, the initial response to 9/11 I agreed with in that regard, but it was time to move on. In retrospect I disagreed with the realpolitik and the practicality of invading Iraq, but to my dying day I'll never understand the liberal position that once we had fucked up that country out duty was to cut tail and run and leave it a huge mess. I think whether you agreed with Iraq or not, once we had done the deed it was gravely immoral to just up and leave, and I'm glad Bush stayed and glad the surge happened. I think it's why Iraq at least has a chance (and it's been unequivocally good for Kurdistan)--hard to say how Iraq turns out long term.

But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.

This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter.  I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward.  They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them.  I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.

[jimmy olsen]

I'll also say that as a conservative Republican that spent years defending much of Bush's activity during the GWOT in some ways Obama has actually gotten scarier on the civil liberties front than Bush did. I was a long view kind of guy on the USA PATRIOT Act and stuff like that. I've read my history, I know that during times of existential threat, the Civil War, World War II, the early stages of the Cold War, America has a tendency to give civil liberties short shrift. But in the long run, we have a strongly democratic and civil libertarian culture. The excesses of Lincoln and Roosevelt were mostly a product of tough times and were reined in to a large degree after their Presidencies were over.

Near the end of Bush's term I felt we had reached that point, the initial response to 9/11 I agreed with in that regard, but it was time to move on. In retrospect I disagreed with the realpolitik and the practicality of invading Iraq, but to my dying day I'll never understand the liberal position that once we had fucked up that country out duty was to cut tail and run and leave it a huge mess. I think whether you agreed with Iraq or not, once we had done the deed it was gravely immoral to just up and leave, and I'm glad Bush stayed and glad the surge happened. I think it's why Iraq at least has a chance (and it's been unequivocally good for Kurdistan)--hard to say how Iraq turns out long term.

But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.

I agree with this too. Civil liberties was the main reason I contemplated voting for Obama in '08. I thought that of all his campaign rhetoric, he was most likely to follow through on that front. It's turned out though they he tried to do most everything else on that list with the exception of civil liberties where he's doubled down on the abuse. It leaves me very dismayed.

[Razgovory]

It's not a question you're supposed to ask. Which is why it threw her off.

She wanted a softball interview, and she got a softball interview.  What else was she suppose to ask Palin, what her favorite color was?

[Martinus]

The problem with Romney's views on economy is that, as The Economist put it, it makes sense only if you assume most of the things he says is just him lying to get elected. This is not very reassuring. For all that we hear about politicians not fulfilling their campaign promises, the real problem comes when they actually do.

[CountDeMoney]

But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.

This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter.  I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward.  They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them.  I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.

Otto's mellowed out since discovering fatherhood.

But the GWOT, just like the Red Scare of the '50s, the Japanese internships of the '40s, the Anarchist Panic of the turn of the century and the Civil War era, we get all knotted up over "The Threat", civil liberties contract a bit, and then they come back.  The nonsense over the GWOT, just like all the nonsense eras before it, will dissipate over time.

This too shall pass.

[The Brain]

This too shall pass.

That's what I said five minutes ago. And it did.

[garbon]

I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.

He is fundamentally correct in this case though.

I don't think so. Personally, if I wanted to use my vote for Presidency as a stick or carrot, I'd follow the advice of voting for a 3rd party. From my vantage point most of the members in congress lack merit.

[frunk]

This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter.  I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward.  They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them.  I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.

The PATRIOT Act was a huge mistake at the time, and it wouldn't of mattered who was in office afterward they weren't going to willingly give up that power.  It was an unnecessary overreaction to a threat that, although real, wasn't nearly as dangerous as our reaction to it.  I don't think in the past 100 years there's been a case of a temporary power given to the US government ever being dropped once the original reason for it has gone away.  The extensions of the PATRIOT Act weren't just implemented by Obama by fiat, they've been supported by each congress that passed them.

It's the same problem as the stupid Bush tax cuts.  They've been in place long enough that it's become the "new normal" even if they weren't initially intended to be.

[dps]

Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.

In a Presidential context, I think that's being generous.  Barack Obama was "adequate" as a back-bencher in the Senate, but while you might be right that he may have had potential to be more than that, it shouldn't shock anybody that he isn't ready for the challange of the Presidency--that was obvious 4 years ago.  Mitt Romney was barely adequate as Governor of Massachusetts--and as you say, he's not shown any potential to be anything more than that.

Ultimately, like OvB, I'm going to vote for Gov. Romney simply because Pres. Obama is too far to the left on economic issues for my taste.

[Count]

from a liberal perspective, I think Obama's been a great president with the notable, and major, exception of civil liberties (well addressed by OvB above). Good take here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.html