Thursday, October 04, 2012

Politics for a Wednesday

I hesitate to write a post about politics.  I've become more circumspect over the years, and there's very little that I could say that hasn't been said better by somebody else.  I also don't like to create divisiveness.  Despite being a liberal, I respect some conservative viewpoints, and frankly, find some extreme liberalism to be silly and more than a little irritating.  Then again, some of the laws proposed or implemented by conservative republicans make me want to move to another country.

I do think Mitt Romney is doing a great job.  A great job of endorsing Obama by making himself look like the biggest tool in the western hemisphere.  I say this even after last night's debate, which apparently the world has decided was won by Romney.  Did no one hear "manage your poor," or (paraphrase) "I'll cut every program that is paid for with borrowed money from China"?  WAT? So PBS is funded from the MONEY FROM CHINA envelope that Obama keeps under his mattress and the military isn't?  My fundamental problem with Romney is that he doesn't give Americans credit for having any intelligence.

We went to a debate-watching party at a bar, which was much more fun than watching it at home, although I did have to step out and pick up Grace from work, and missed much of the healthcare discussion, which is what I most wanted to hear.  There was a group of republicans (where did they come from) who had evidently agreed to make "Obamacare" their drinking game touchstone.  I guess they would have gotten drunker if they'd decided to drink every time Romney went through his five points of what the fuck.


Seriously though, it's disconcerting to see a guy running for president of the United States who has made an issue of people's access to food.  Food, in a land where forty percent of our food is wasted.  Let's be honest, there are people who have absolutely no interest in becoming contributing members of society.  There are other people, who for various reasons, are unlikely to ever find a job that pays enough to support a family no matter how hard they try.  Is it really such a terrible thing for the government to help them?  What are we afraid of?  Oh, you would prefer to have the taxes that you paid that would have supported the poor, returned to your pocket?  So you're comfortable with the possibility that if you get cancer and your insurance company cancels your policy and you accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and lose your job and are destitute, that there be no programs to help you?  (Never mind the fact that if we all had access to health care, no one would have to worry about their insurance company dropping them because they have cancer.)


You could be the hardest-working motherfucker on the planet and still be vulnerable to the sort of disasters that destroy people.  Recently, I was up on a ladder, pruning vines off the top of our pergola.  The ladder slipped, tilted away from the pergola, and for a split second I was on the point of falling backwards, along with the ladder and cracking my skull and breaking my neck against a set of stairs, immediately behind me, until I shifted my weight forward and the ladder once more came to rest against the pergola.  In a split second, anybody can become a "victim" who is dependent on the government.

**Apologies for effed-up formatting.  There's something wonky about the browser I'm using now and I can't access the line justification toggle.  Maybe I should just reinsert the unflattering photo of Romney that was published in The Washington Post.  Whoops, no italics either.

11 comments:

  1. Even my father, who was a dedicated lifelong Republican, was planning to vote for President Obama if he made it that far. As he put it in one of our last conversations, "I have a wife, two daughters, and two granddaughters. I have no faith whatsoever that the Republican Party will treat the women I love with respect or even basic courtesy."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really think liberals like Chris Matthews had way over-hyped expectations of this first debate. Essentially, Obama did what he planned to do - laid out the facts, called Romney out on his lies, and emphasized his commitment to the middle class and to Obamacare. He had no plans to hit it out of the park and decimate the Romney campaign in one fell swoop. Voters think Romney "won" simply because Obama did not wipe the stage with him. If that's winning, he can have it.

    Long story short - Romney was sweating, Obama wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I couldn't watch the whole debate because I felt so bad for Obama. Romney is one slick dude and it's always easier for the non-incumbent to criticize actions and policies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Romney is a dick.

    This is an objective observation form someone in another country who can not in any way influence this election.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What really boggles my mind are people like one of my colleagues. She will proudly let you know that she is voting for Romney. This is the woman who also just told me she had to apply for the free school lunch for her two boys, both of which do not have any health coverage. It would eat up her entire paycheck if she put them on hers. Her husband owns a small business and can't afford coverage, either. Oh, and by the way, we work at a PBS station where half the jobs have already been cut. And yet, she somehow believes things would be better with Romney at the helm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I did not watch, because I don't need to get that mad :-)

    From what I've read/heard today, it sounds like Romney "won" only because expectations for him were so low. It didn't take much for him to exceed them.

    Personally, all I've heard from him says "I don't care about people".

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like your idea of watching the debates in a bar. Seems like it would provide some added entertainment. I didn't watch. I've already voted -- because I am going to be in another state on election date. I read a book instead.
    I actually used to like Romney, but the 47percent comment did it for me.
    A small percentage of those 47 percent who don't pay taxes are Romney's kind of people --very rich people who have figured out a way not to. Then of course there's also the most vulnerable.
    How is this man in any way religious? Would Jesus say such things? Maybe the Mormon Jesus would.
    I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think our candidates would be a lot better if they focused on people and their problems rather than on corporations and their amoral desires. That said, I think both major candidates are pretty evil and that it will be bad for poor people regardless of who wins.

    Being a very liberal person, I am left with no real options as far as voting is concerned, in this or most elections these days.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, you might find this interesting: http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-presidential-debate-has-ever-mattered.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jen, I have no faith that the Republican party is good for women either, although I know someone who insists that Obama is anti-women.

    SC, I like your assessment.

    NB, Obama did look a little peaked. Maybe he was sick?

    TSB, yes, Romney is a dick.

    Barbara, That 47% comment was extra obnoxious. It's a big reason why I think Romney has no respect for average Americans.

    Annie, for your sake (and PBS's) I hope Obama is elected.

    Cassi, I agree, expectations for Romney were low.

    Laoch, thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sad to say, I liked Romney better BEFORE he tried to get all the conservatives to like him better. Now, even my Republican-leaning husband isn't even going to vote for him.
    We are like-minded women, Patience.

    ReplyDelete