I've long been interested in history, politics and current events, but this election and its stakes seem to have made me increasingly and disturbingly angry. Despite espousing the virtues behind the choices we have, which form the very definition of a "democratic" republic, in recent conversations, I've found myself provoked into becoming the fiery partisan I've tried (or thought I'd tried) so hard not to be. In my defense, though, I caught a rerun this morning of Frontline about Romney and Obama and where they come from. It clearly illustrated what I already suspected: However similar or different it may be from past election cycles, this one is chaotic, fundamentally hypocritical and almost corrupt. I believe that to be a fact and one best illustrated by the issues of health care and, to some extent, national security, as it has been confronted by both candidates... often IN THE SAME WAYS!
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
It starts, in earnest, between 2002 and 2006, when Republican governor Mitt Romney has been almost totally, politically impotent in and amongst what is otherwise an almost totally Democrat state legislature. Desperate for a political and legislative victory upon which he can build a legacy, he chooses health care and fixates upon the idea of the individual mandate requiring all to buy health insurance as a way to lure Democrats - including the lion of the Senate, himself, Ted Kennedy - to his side. It works, the bill is passed and dubbed Romneycare. What a majority of working class, grassroots conservative Republicans and future-voters-for-President don't know - besides Romney, himself - is that the lynch pin of this state's version of "universal health care" is predicated upon the mandate as first put forth by the Heritage Foundation, A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!
Flash forward to now, beyond Romney's failed run for the candidacy in 2008, and not only has he become more socially conservative to appeal to the base, but he's running, in part, on the promise to overturn the biggest and most controversial piece of legislation that Obama has passed - the Affordable Care Act - even though it was not only inspired by Romney's prior bill, but devised in an advisory capacity by some of the same consultants! Somehow, as seems to happen way too often, partisanship on the right has become so extreme that in their opposition to Obama and, I guess by default, the Affordable Care Act (an opposition I nevertheless join, regardless of where it came from), that it seems to have blinded them to the fact that what they and their candidate-of-choice is now opposing was born on their side! That Romney passed a similar bill is what they know and why Romney has a rough time coming up in the ranks, but the rest... it's the equivalent of white noise on the right.
Of course, as I said, this seems to happen often nowadays, and it's happened on the left, as well. Seemingly unable to run on his domestic record and failed to realize his great goal to bridge the political gap in Washington, Obama has shifted to a more adversarial standpoint that sharply delineates the choice everyone has in this campaign season. In the meantime, he's also deviated from his party in his treatment of national security, ending the war in Iraq (albeit forced to do so by the Iraqi government's refusal to grant troops legal immunity), but approving and even reinforcing covert and other military, ground operations around the world. After a decade of his party calling Bush and the Republicans war hawks and imperialists, he slams the brakes on any effort to shutdown Gitmo and then intervenes militarily in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, aiding suspected Al-Qaeda members in the resistance and justifying it later with basically the same excuse that Bush had for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq after no nukes were found - that America had/has a moral responsibility to intervene where people are oppressed by tyrants!
Yesterday, I read a comment from a very liberal associate that despite his dismay at what he called Obama's war policies, he was going to stick with Obama because the Republicans HAVE NOT challenged that policy (even though they have, to some extent and for better or worse), which indicates to him that the Republicans would be as bad or worse. Maybe, maybe not, but this is like the Republicans with what I now call ROMBAMACARE: Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is the refusal to acknowledge the roots of what they oppose on the other side because it might threaten their comfortable partisanship.
I filled out my absentee ballot early and voted for Romney - but NOT because of anything said here. Though I don't much like or trust Romney much more than I do Obama, the fact remains that Romney - coming into the Presidency - would not only be older and more fundamentally experienced, but have more substantive knowledge and experience in BOTH the private and public sectors. In confronting an issue such as the economy and any reasons for repealing the Affordable Care Act (although I doubt it can or will ever be totally repealed), Romney will confront it having actually managed a corporation - which is structured much like the government, itself, and thus faces similar fiscal issues. He will confront the promise to balance and adhere to a more realistic and responsible national budget having actually created, balanced and adhered to similarly BIG budgets in both the private and public sector. Obama, on the other hand, is a law professor that basically forfeited his chance at significant, real-world experience in the legal world to become an author, then a Senator and, then - because of his performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I think, as well as his race - to run for and become President. This all leads into my next blog, in which I feel compelled to explain why I'd rather meet Obama instead of vote for him and vote for Romney instead of meet him, as well as why that might a necessary, if unfortunate conclusion at which to arrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I HATE censorship on principle, so all I ask is that if you decide to vehemently disagree with and challenge me, please endeavor to do so in as civil and specific a manner as possible, citing examples (if not always sources) to back up your claims. Other than that... have fun! Thanks. - JD...