The Obama Presidency, Term One


Mr. Obama was once our dream. He was our brainchild in ’08. The whole world said  “yes we can!”

So what changed?

I’ll tell you what changed:

The American economy rebounded from the worst recession since the global depression.

Osama bin Laden was tracked down and taken out like the trash that he was.

We saw the greatest and most necessary healthcare reform that America needed come to pass. And because of it +30 millions of Americans who were previously uninsured now have affordable care.

If indeed our only rebuke of the man is the speed at which he has managed to effect these changes then it is also irrational for us to cut his time even more.

Obviously recovery takes longer than collapse. One has to first get over the inertia of the destructive recession to even begin an attempt at growth. And indeed Mr.Obama has accomplished this for in the third quarter of 2012 the GDP has grown by 2%.
This is a fact, not a polling number.

America has grown during Mr. Obama’s Presidency. America is on a healthy path with this president. How could you even consider risking that positivity by changing leadership during this time of nascent growth?

In this election, we have a challenger who just months ago insisted that America should get rid of FEMA and replace it with some vague state level agency. Yet with increasingly volatile weather caused by human induced climate change, how can anyone seriously suggest that we remove one of the few entities which Americans in crisis can depend on?

The thing about an emergency is that it does not respect cost! Disasters cannot be controlled as they occur but certainly the aftermath can be managed. And if the aftermath is poorly managed then the overall recovery cost increases by factors. Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand that. He only views this in terms of short term costs versus benefits. Quite frankly like an out of practice CEO. It is indeed disturbing to think that whilst people are cold and hungry in the wake of a disaster that the President would be more concerned about the cost of helping them and less about their suffering. Mitt Romney wants to divide America into States. He wants States to view one another as competitors rather than as allies. His experience in the private sector has molded him into a callous and uncaring individual. Romney has no place in Government.

We do have the right man in office. His values are the people’s values. He knows that people are more concerned with security at home rather than with an adventurous military abroad. Barack Obama genuinely cares about people. His field is in the humanities. His expertise is far more suited to the care of 300 million Americans than Mr. Romney’s corporate experience. He sees millions of workers where Mitt Romney only sees a few hundred corporations. He sees thousands of futures where Mitt Romney sees only money being spent on education expenditures.

Cost cutting is what is necessary to reduce the National debt. But the reason we want to reduce the National debt is to help millions of people who will have to pay it back eventually. It therefore makes no sense to burden these same Americans by destroying the social programs they depend on.

America is not under any current threat of such magnitude that it can justify the military spending increases which Mr. Romney advocates for. Are these sums not also adding to the National debt? How can the right continue to exist when they have been proven to be so full of hypocrisy?

America is wounded. It needs to be restored from the inside out. Military spending will not build hospitals nor schools nor infrastructure of any kind domestically. It will merely be blown away on some expensive, murderous tool of inhumanity.

Americans live in the United States of America. Military spending however, is mainly wasted abroad. The late 2000s recession damaged the American economy. The rest of the world’s nations are desperately trying to build back their own domestic capacities. The US will end up weaker if it spends it’s own scarce resources on foreign interventions rather than on nation building at home.

Barack Obama is not threatening other nations like his blowhard republican challenger. He understands that they are sovereign nations. And just as the United States would not be manipulated by threats and terrorism and demands from foreign nations, so too does Mr. Obama avoid such an ineffective foreign policy strategy. His opponents of course have painted this as some kind of weakness on Mr. Obama’s part. But they do so for political reasons which is to say with absolute disregard for the facts. These are the same people who insist that Barack Obama is a Muslim but at the same time also a Communist. Communism does not in fact endorse any religion.

Healthcare reform is also an agenda in this election. The challenger Mitt  Romney has vowed to repeal ACA. He childishly attacks this healthcare reform without a thought for the millions of people who will be left uninsured should it cease to exist. He offers no alternative and no hope for the millions of his fellow citizens with pre-existing medical conditions who will yet again become abandoned by greedy insurance companies. This is the man who promises 12 million jobs. The same man who as Governor in Massachusetts lost his State 40,000 manufacturing jobs.

How can you trust anything he says when he changes his mind almost as often as he changes his tie?

Barack Obama is the safe option.

Barack Obama is the smart option.

Barack Obama is my choice and my appeal to you is that you also make him your choice.

Thank you for your time reader.


Now go out and vote. 🙂

Will Mormonism become Mitt’s Bradley effect?

Is there an anti-Mormon analogous to the Bradley effect?

Okay, so as I understand it, the Bradley effect is a polling phenomenon wherein white people said they were going to vote for a black candidate in greater numbers than they actually did. Its named for a particular black  mayoral candidate from the eighties. Admittedly this effect hasn’t been logged or documented during elections in the past decade or so. This has been attributed to increasing trust among white voters for black candidates running for elective office. It could also be as a result of white people polling more honestly and generally having the confidence to express their genuine opinions.

My task here today is to explore the concept of how personal opinion interacts with personal embarrassment. A recent poll showed that only 8% of Americans view Mitt Romney’s religion as a factor determining whether or not they would vote for him. Mitt Romneys religion is quite conspicuously the least relevant fact that those polled have considered in choosing who to vote for.

Upon analyzing this slim figure I’m astonished at the idea that only such a low number would admit to the pan-human trait of religious intolerance. I mean are these the same people who for years were fighting in Northern Ireland in defense of such concepts as Catholic v.s. Protestant?

Now here they are presented with the ideological rift between Christianity and Mormonism and only 8% consider it an issue? The founder of Mormonism was himself  assassinated simply for expounding his doctrine of the eventual transition of humans to the level of God. Jesus the Christ was killed, so the story goes, for proselytizing his belief that he was the son of God and the savior of mankind. The very founders of these religions were the first of their respective faiths to experience the very intolerance of which Im writing.

Mormons in America represent about 10 million people in the general population of 313+ millions of people. So its safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are in fact not Mormons. Of these, am I honestly to believe that only a mere 8% consider the alien nature of Mr. Romney’s religion an issue? The only words suitable that come to mind are those of the character Gregory House from the medical drama “House” ; “Everybody lies!”

I now try to imagine a random person on the phone answering these question about their sometimes politically incorrect views. I think about just how many random people out there, when given an opportunity to act like what they believe to be a typical voter, would have the mettle to answer that they do in fact have a problem with candidate Romney’s Mormon faith. The very heart of middle class sensibilities is rooted in denying  the less pleasant aspects of the world and of ourselves. True suburbanites have an editing faculty built in. The kind that says, ” Hating Jews is definitely wrong; Hating Blacks is probably wrong and Hating Mormons is…” Well that last part is what we’re examining here today.

Please note that I’m not decrying polls in general. The problem here is not in how these polls were conducted but in those who were polled. These polls assume a deep rooted and academic certainty will result from their carefully worded questions. Their side cannot possibly account for just how irrationally self-conscious some people can be when forced to instantly question their own morality. Denial is usually the first stage or this sudden awakening. Acceptance is inevitably the last. And in between is a variable cocktail of ingredients ranging from realism to self deluding bliss. But at that instant of facing one’s true and disappointing self, denial is the most common first defense. So when in fact a person is asked cold whether or not Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs or religion will be a determining factor on whether or not they’re gonna vote for him, I maintain that an automatic “No” would be a lie for most middle class individuals. They simply have too much to lose by telling the truth. Namely themselves.