The Case for Barack Obama

  • Share
  • Read Later
Michael Reynolds / Pool / Getty Images

Waiting in line for two-and-a-half hours is rarely an exciting experience. But when my son and I voted early—he for the first time—at a community center in Rockville, Md., both of us were inspired by the hundreds of other people intent on exercising democracy’s most basic right.

In our deep blue county, this was largely an Obama crowd, crossing the boundaries of race, class and age. It was white, African American and Latino, young, middle-aged and old. These citizens eager to lift their voices reminded us that in this campaign, one coalition includes almost every kind of American. If Obama wins, he will owe his re-election to a little bit of all of us: blue-collar white voters in the Midwest, upscale voters in the Northeast and on the West Coast, an overwhelming percentage of Latino voters turned off by a new nativism on the right, and near unanimous solidarity on his behalf among African Americans. Obama is not the sort to think about dismissing 47% of us.

(MORE: Read the Case for Mitt Romney)

The sweep of the Obama coalition represented in that snaking line led my son and me to conclude something else: The President Obama of 2012 may no longer stir the jubilation called forth by the Barack Obama of 2008. But the hope and resolve he spoke of then have not vanished.

Yes, those feelings have been tempered by hard times and four years of bitter political struggle. Obama appears now less as a savior than as a human being with flaws and virtues, failures and successes. The hope of four years ago has transformed itself into something more mature and durable: a confidence in what an increasingly diverse, tolerant and open America can achieve. It is a view that flatly rejects the fears of those who see our country in decline and who always insist that the good old days should be our standard for the future. A nation that has produced Greatest Generations in the past can do so again. Indeed, I think we’re doing so right now.

In making electoral decisions, voters sensibly combine hard judgments about where candidates stand with instinctive calculations about how character might influence their choices in situations we cannot imagine today.

Ronald Reagan offered the most widely honored question about the practical matters: Are you better off than you were four years ago? And for most of the country, the answer is yes. Obama inherited an economy in shambles—the GDP was shrinking at an annual rate of nearly 9% when he took office—and turned it around. Unemployment is well down from its peak, 4.5 million private-sector jobs have been created since January 2010, the stock market has doubled since it hit bottom, and the housing market is stabilizing. Mitt Romney can promise 12 million more jobs in the coming four years because Obama’s policies have already put us on track to produce them, courtesy of a revival of manufacturing, a rise in exports and a new wave of research and innovation.

(PHOTOS: The Attempted Assassination of President Reagan Revisited)

Most relevant to this year’s choice is the fact that the economy is in far better shape than it would have been if we had followed the counsel of Obama’s foes. They would have allowed the auto industry to collapse. They would have ignored history’s lesson that government must step in to stimulate economic activity when private demand plummets. We know from the experience of Europe that austerity leads to stagnation. Obama made the better choice.

Romney has at times condemned Obama’s stimulus plan while standing in front of enterprises returned to prosperity by the stimulus. Paul Ryan denounced the stimulus and then sought its succor for companies in his district. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Obama has revived a practical, sober and realistic foreign policy in the tradition of George H.W. Bush. Democrats crow about the killing of Osama bin Laden and thrill to Vice President Joe Biden’s handy bumper-sticker line “Osama bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.” But behind the quip is a reality: Obama has transformed the war on terrorism from an all-purpose slogan designed to rationalize all manner of foreign policy adventures to a focused effort to keep the country safe. By ending the war in Iraq, winding down our commitment in Afghanistan and abandoning grandiose adventurism, he has redirected U.S. foreign policy toward the classic and sensible goals of preserving our power and influence and shaping an international environment congenial to our prosperity and our values.

Republicans bridle at the idea that Obama has restored respect for our country around the world. But it’s true. An Obama defeat would threaten many of his diplomatic achievements, including building what one pro-Western ambassador called “a successful coalition of the unlike-minded and unwilling” to confront Iran.

The strongest endorsement of Obama’s choices came from his opponent. In the third debate, Romney abandoned months of bellicose rhetoric and lined up behind one Obama decision after another. In this polarized political era, poll-tested imitation is about the only form of flattery we can expect. When Romney declared that “we don’t want another Iraq,” he was blessing the transition from George W. Bush’s era to Obama’s.

(PHOTOS: Last Days on the Road with Obama)

Obama’s decision to ignore cautious political advisers and see through the health care reform fight came at great political cost. Even some of his allies think the electoral price was too high. But this is a measure of Obama’s fortitude. By bringing the promise of health insurance to tens of millions of our citizens, Obama ended a national scandal. No other wealthy nation allows so many to live without basic coverage for illness or to rely on emergency rooms as a last resort. They either arrive there long after the opportunity to get well has passed, or they survive only to face years, sometimes a lifetime, of debt. The Affordable Care Act is an achievement worthy of our great reforming Presidents.

Once again Romney’s behavior proves the point. He speaks of repealing Obamacare only in general terms. When it comes to so many of the specifics—on prohibiting insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, for example, or on making it easier for parents to cover their adult children—Romney winds up backing what Obama did.

Beyond these large questions are concrete Obama achievements: his support for women’s rights, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the end of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and his endorsement of gay marriage; passage of Wall Street reform, including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; reform of the student-loan program; his appointments of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, checking the right-wing drift in the judiciary that gave us decisions like Citizens United; and many of the investments in the stimulus package, notably in clean energy. In quieter times, these would be playing a much larger role in the campaign.

All are part of the case for Obama. But the best reason for his re-election goes back to what motivated so many middle-of-the-road voters four years ago. Americans who want to replace polarization with balance, extremism with moderation, obstruction with problem solving and blind partisanship with compromise need Obama to win again. An Obama defeat would empower those whose go-for-broke approach to politics is largely responsible for the distemper of our public life and the dysfunction in Washington.

(PHOTOS: America Votes: Election 2012)

This election does not represent a choice between left and right. It represents a choice between balance and a new, extreme form of conservatism. This new conservatism cannot accept any tax increases as part of a deal to reduce the deficit. For all his attempts to sound moderate in the campaign’s closing days, Romney has not altered the response he gave during a Republican-primary debate rejecting a hypothetical deal involving a 10-to-1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases. This refusal to acknowledge the need for more revenue is a recipe for eviscerating government—and the cuts, as Ryan’s budget shows, would fall disproportionately on programs for Americans with the lowest incomes.

The new right has broken with conservatism’s past—and our country’s most constructive traditions—by adopting a new and radical individualism that largely ignores our country’s gift for community.

The America of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and both the Republican and Democratic Roosevelts understood that government has a role to play in tempering the market and making investments the market depends on but will not make itself. The new conservatism measures freedom almost entirely in terms of the share of the nation’s GDP that flows to the state, as if spending on Medicare, Social Security, student loans, community colleges and infrastructure improvements somehow made us less “free.” And in the face of growing economic inequality, the new conservatism regularly discounts or condemns government’s role in leaning toward modestly greater equity, promoting upward mobility and checking concentrated economic power. It is this variety of conservatism that Romney bowed to in the primaries and would be forced to accommodate if he became President, whatever his constantly shifting views might actually be.

(PHOTOS: Sandy Sidelines Obama and Romney, but Campaign Spins On)

Obama, to a fault, devoted enormous energy during his first 21⁄2 years in office trying to move his opponents to compromise. Thus was almost a third of his stimulus plan devoted to tax cuts. Thus did he model his health care plan after Romney’s in Massachusetts. Thus did he seek a deal with House Speaker John Boehner during the debt-ceiling confrontation that, if enacted, would have disappointed many of the President’s progressive supporters. Only those who confuse compromise with capitulation can claim that Obama did not try mightily to keep his promise to end partisanship in Washington.

Obama should win a referendum on his stewardship. But this is also a choice—a “big choice,” just as Romney says—between moderation and a return to an approach to government more suited to the Gilded Age than to the 21st century. Obama is battling to defend the long consensus that has guided American government successfully since the Progressive Era. It is based on the view that ours is a country whose Constitution begins with the word we, not me, and that the private success we honor depends on a government that serves a common good and remembers the most vulnerable among us. The task of our moment is to revive that long consensus and renew it. Of the two major candidates, only Barack Obama accepts this mission as his own.

(MORE: Read the Case for Mitt Romney)

Dionne is a Washington Post columnist and the author of Our Divided Political Heart (Bloomsbury). He is a professor at Georgetown

754 comments
smjhunt
smjhunt

I general I would agree with most of what the author says.  Obama has brought a more level headed and inclusive slant to government.  The fact that he has not turned around the fate of the middle class cannot be seen as his fault. The  fundamental factors behind the middle class decline (cheaper labor in Asia and technology that allows one person to do the work of many) are not easily tackled by any president.  Certainly China's manipulation of its currency and unequal willingness to let us profit from them as they do from us is something a President should address but the fundamental desire of the average Chinese to have a better life is not something we want to be trying to prevent.  Nor for that matter can we afford to turn our back on technology or expect corporations to ignore the costs savings of exporting labor.  

This problem will require long term efforts to orient Americans towards the type of work that is not easily exported and to allow us to do more with less money.  While the unemployment percentage is definitely a problem, more pervasive is the fact that our cost of living is increasing significantly without corresponding wage increases.   If the forces of globalization are going to slow down or eliminate wage increases, we need to create a system where we can do more with less money.  The obstacles to this include a health care system where there  is little cost containment (everything is just passed on to the consumer), an educational system that prices more and more people out of higher education while not offering any better positioning for success of its graduates than it did when it cost one tenth as much, a financial system that allows, even encourages, bubbles and speculation that destroy people's equity in stocks and houses and transfers it to the very rich, not to mention triggering government bail outs because they are too big to fail.  These are things the government can do something about. But it will take much more than the President, regardless of who he/she is.

It is somewhat disappointing then that  Obama has not really taken action against the financial industry..  While the author is correct that he signed a bill to help regulate them, as pointed out in the documentary "Inside Job", very little of this regulation has been enforced and not even the worst offenders from the meltdown have been prosecuted despite the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley in response to Enron.  Sixty Minutes also presented a very good piece showing how congressman and senators who help big money will be rewarded with consultant and lobbyist positions after they leave office.  Even more disturbing is the revelation in Inside Job about how economists in academia who we expect to have the detachment and objectivity of scientists are actually being paid big bucks by these people and see no conflict of interest in it.

We also know about the Super PACs where billionaires can exert influence far beyond their numbers in secret.  One of the most insidious consequences of this is how they have effectively made elections so costly (2 billion dollars wasted on this one).   This means that any candidate, including Obama, must rely on the rich corporations and donors to have any chance of being elected and is probably the number one reason Obama has not taken action against them. 

I don't think we will really get a significant turn around in the fate of the middle class until this issue is addressed.  Sure, there will be gimmicks like the housing and stock market bubbles that will obscure the decline but nothing that will fundamentally reverse it.

Listenbeheard
Listenbeheard

You should call in to this interactive audio project and talk about the election. Make your voice heard.http://listenbeheard.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/todays-topic-is-the-election-again/

Today’s topic is the election (again)Hello. How are you? It is finally here. This cycle’s topic is the election. This is a two-parter everyone. What do you think will happen with the election? After, how do you feel about the results? Please call in multiple times. I want to hear from people from all over with all sorts of different opinions on this one. You. I want to hear from you.To answer, dial 347-765-0148 or email a voice memo to listenbeheard@gmail.com. That number is just for you. Nobody will ever answer that line and you never have to say your name. If you call the number, please pick a place where you have the best phone reception possible. I would love to hear from you on this topic by midnight November 24, 2012 eastern time. Do note, the line will cut out after three minutes. You can just again.Of course, the line is always open for anything you have to say or want to talk about it. At times, I may share these answers wider than this blog, but i will always treat your voice with respect.I want to hear from you. I really do.

srinihv
srinihv

Wish the President had read this inspiring article on the day of Denver debate!

so much of this No sense of the last month would have become redundant..

Hope he stands by his fortitude with the House from Jan 20th..

kelly57
kelly57

"The difference as I see it is that Obama is willing to learn from his mistakes and get better..." Seriously? I have issues with Romney, but Obama's far outweigh them. From day one he showed his disdain for anyone besides himself. (Paraphrasing) "We won the election." He alienated any with an inkling of compromise. He's proven this past weekend he's a phony politician like many on both sides with his "revenge" comment. Lies about Benghazi; doesn't tell his state department to be careful on 9/11? This has been the absolute worst presidency in history. Just ask anyone buying gas and milk and everything in between, and those in our military who don't know if the administration under him will have their back, among 23 million out of work. Oh, and to boot, shoving a health care bill that violates the first amendment by imposing the religion of abortion on us all. Regardless of who wins tomorrow, God help us and have mercy on us. We're in deep, deep trouble.

T.P.Chia
T.P.Chia

Obama is not a perfect President, but he has had more successes than failures in the last four years. Many Americans fail to realize and appreciate what he has done for the economy through his stimulus-bailout policies, and are still unhappy or angry with the improved 7.9% of unemployment rate.  Ultraconservatives are against his social security and medical care policies that help the wroking class and the poor. It is true that it took four long years to begin turning around the economic recession, but Obama's efforts and contributions cannot be ignored.  America could have suffered more without Obama doing what he had done!

Obama's foreign policy is good for the American people, the nation and the world.  America is now more respected thoughout the world, and has been able to influence and lead the world wothout resorting to military conflicts.

Billy Graham said "God wills Romney's victory over Obama", as if God supported Romney's conservative individualism.  The Christian God has no power to determine the presidential election--the majority of Americans will make Romney or Obama  the next President of the US.  And Obama is more likely to be re-elected, because Republican's election strategies and tactics--full of extremist assertions and distortions--have alienated the majority of moderate Americans who are intelligently fair-minded.

ironyman2
ironyman2

If you judge interest by the "most read" and "most emailed" articles, this is a big one. Are readers trying to reassure themselves that there is a case for reelecting a president who has few leadership skills and no apparent plans for his second term? I like this quote I read recently "This year has been much better for Obama than 2011. He decided not to govern at all in 2012." Scary, but true.

Juan'tAjob
Juan'tAjob

HUGE SHOCK that Dionne would get Time's last gasp effort to save Obama.  All one has to do is ignore Obama's record and buy into the narrative that Romney is an ultra-conservative idealist and it's easy to agree with him.  

Obama's record, in a nutshell:  Almost $6 Trillion in additional Debt, 15 Million ADDITIONAL Food Stamps recipients, 4 Million more women moved below the poverty line, sky-high gas prices and chronically high Unemployment...how could Dionne NOT endorse the guy?  Who cares that, in four short years, a child born in 2009 has accrued another $15,000 in personal debt?  Who cares that Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were ABANDONED to die gruesome deaths at the hands of terrorist groups at our Libyan Consulate?

Yes, all voters need do is ignore all of Obama's failures and broken promises and his reelection is a no-brainer...literally!

peterb
peterb

A  ROMNEY WIN:   on day 1~The wealthy 1% will be laughing all theway to the bank, again. All of the CEO’s holding on to those huge bonuses.Credit Card company’s back in the driver seat, no regulations.  The Tea party back in you face for norights for women, gay people, people in need , less Fireman, Police, andTeachers & education. If you consider yourself working class or retiredworking class… look forward to loss or reduced health care & health care ata higher cost than you’ve seen ever. TheLoss of your mortgage deduction & others and more of the tax burdenon the middle class~ broadening the tax base… this is what they mean.AlsoMitt has already given a view of how he would handle the rest of the world byslapping them in the face, declaring some as enemies with his arrogant approach.Everyone knows he is a proven liar over and over .. who will deal w/ that?Ifyour kids are about to enter collage~ beware it will cost you plenty and with nogovernment help. Allof are cars will be burning OIL for years to come! This is not progress. Don’tbe fooled it is a matter of Trust.

NoorLucman
NoorLucman

Why Barack Hussein Obama? A Republican victory will enhance China's trajectory in Asia as a major US strategic partner in the Pacific Rim and East Asia. There will be a spike in US military "humanitarian interventions" in the Middle East, foremost of this is a preemptive strike with Israel against "nuclear" Iran. Cold War with Russia will inevitably drag the Islamic World into militancy and arms race, creating a scenario that will pull US foreign policy on a military stand-off with erstwhile rejectionist states like Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Venezuela and a number of Arabian Gulf countries and major oil-producing countries. Global tensions will translate into trillions of dollars for GOP, Pentagon and US Military-Industrial Complex. Mitt Romney will push America to the brink of Armageddon.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

The best argument for voting for Obama is the Republican party itself. A once great party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has been taken over by religious fanatics, misogynists and xenophobes. They place loyalty to a private individual(Grover Nordquist) ahead of loyalty to the country that elected them. And the icing on the cake came when Obama was elected and during a time of two wars and the worst financial crisis since the 30's all they could think about was how to make him a one term president.

johnstaszak
johnstaszak

It is nonsense that economy better than it would have been had we adopted conservative policies. The Wall Street Journal reports that the economy has grown just 7.2% since Obama took over. The typical econmic recovery leads to 16% growth over the next four years.  The Obama recovery is thus less than one half the extent of the typical economic recovery. In addition, under Reagan, the economy grew nearly 20% following the recession of the early-eighties.  The Obama recovery is barely one-third of that. Dionne does not know what he is talking about. No wonder people no longer subscribe to Time or Newsweek.

fitty_three
fitty_three

I guess the insane only come out to drink at night.

dhcompanyman
dhcompanyman

 I think it's funny that Obama can't seem to make the case for himself....

Alexander
Alexander

@kelly57 Abortion as a religion!

What are it's doctrines?

Where are it's places of worship?

How does a health care bill force you to worship there?

You've brought up an interesting idea for discussion.  Perhaps a religion that has abortion as one of it's sacraments could help ease world overpopulation and starvation.

You could even make some money if you were to approach it the right way.  I haven't seen any manuals on starting a new religion, but I'm sure there must be one.  

After all, the parallels between Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are too numerous to ignore! The latter, unfortunately, made the mistake of not including the name "Jesus Christ" in the name of his church, and without an association with Christianity, too many people believe it to be a cult for it to ever become as nearly mainstream as Smith's church has become.    Also, having all his church's members start out as saints and then strive to be gods is a much more attractive premise than having your members start out infested with engrams that one must strive to remove in order to return to the state of being a clear Thetan (The thetan is sort of analogous to the mormon concept of a soul's pre-existence prior to being assigned a body to be born into on the planet earth).

In the absence of a manual, I suppose that either of the two could have made a good model to base a new religion on.  I'm not sure how one might fit abortion into a similar theology, however.  Could you elaborate further on this "religion of abortion"?  The idea is intriguing, but I've never heard of it before.  Are those who get aborted reincarnated into earthly bodies?  I hope not, because that would do nothing to help the population problem.  Does the Church of Abortion believe that people have lived on other planets in previous lives, (as is true of people in Scientology, and of Gods in Mormonism)?

P.S. In the context of this election, it's a good thing for Romney that he isn't a Scientologist.   If he were, we probably would not even know his name, and there would be someone else running against Obama.!

passap
passap

  I saw on CNN that Billy Graham endorsed Romney and took Mormomism off of his list of "cults" on his websites.  What a hypocrite he is.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

The best argument for voting for Obama is the Republican party itself. A once great party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has been taken over by religious fanatics, misogynists and xenophobes. They place loyalty to a private individual(Grover Nordquist) ahead of loyalty to the country that elected them. And the icing on the cake came when Obama was elected and during a time of two wars and the worst financial crisis since the 30's all they could think about was how to make him a one term president.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@Juan'tAjob Obama ended one war, is in the process of ending another one and has had a net job swing of 971,000 jobs a month. But by all means lets bring back the policies that crashed the economy in the first place.

Alexander
Alexander

@NoorLucman 

More likely "past the brink of Armageddon".  According to his belief system, after leaving this plane of existence, he will be able to become the God of his very own planet.   

Read up on the doctrines that form the foundation of the belief system that forms the core of Romney's personage.  Most of the LDS church documents are available on-line, either at LDS church web sites or any one of numerous "Why our family left the Mormon church" web sites.

Probably a good source for relatively unbiased information on the subject is Wikipedia (due to Wikipedia's policies regarding deletion of unverifiable material.

I realize that at first glance it probably sounds like bigotry, but what scares me more about Romney than his two-facedness is his religion.   Throughout it's history,  one of it's central doctrines was that Blacks are descended from Cain while other people are descended from Abel.  The doctrine asserts that "The mark of Cain" was "blackened skin and a flat nose".   They considered not only anyone with black skin to be unclean and thus an unacceptable candidate for priesthood, but anyone whose lineage included as little as a drop of black blood was considered unclean as well. The second "prophet" of the LDS church even preached that a white person who slept with anyone with such a lineage should be put to death!

This attitude towards people of African ancestry (actually in reality, who is not of African ancestry?) remained pervasive until 1978, when the God of  planet Earth was said to have revealed to the LDS church president that it had become time to extend "priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church" This revelation "was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it".

The change in attitude followed by three years a 1975 announcement by  LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball that he planned to build a temple in San Paulo, Brazil.  According to an article in a peer-reviewed Mormon journal ( Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990 ), "Determining priesthood eligibility in Brazil was obviously problematic due to high uncertainty in tracing ancestral roots. When the temple was announced, church leaders realized the difficulty of restricting persons with various bloodlines from attending the temple in Brazil".

Regarding severely racist statements made by former "prophets",   Current LDS church doctrine states that prophecies and pronouncements of  "live prophets" always have precedence over those of "dead prophets".

Some ex-Mormons complained that they just couldn't keep up with all the scripture revisions that have accompanied changes in their former church to keep up with the times.

Come to think about it, this doesn't seem all that incompatible with  Romney's ability to say whatever his audience wants him to say:

You should need to click on the following: (I don't want to waste your screen space unnecessarily)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2x2W4GhSLlQ

thinkdifferently
thinkdifferently

@NoorLucman So how will Obama's foreign policies prevent the scenario you've laid out?  OVer the last couple of decades America's leadership position in the world has greatly diminished leaving a void.  It seems like what is happening is the effects of filling that void.  The void will be filled no matter who is president.  

Make sure your seat belts are fastened because it's going to be a bumpy ride.

ironyman2
ironyman2

@mantisdragon91 I voted for Romney because of the economy but mostly agree with you. Not being snide, but if the GOP doesn't manage to beat a man who came into office with no experience and has shown almost no real leadership, they deserve to lose the White House. I think they may - but just barely. The party needs to re-group. Romney made a mistake by playing the GOP base: aging, white, very conservative men, and some women. The GOP has ignored the reality that 40% of the country is made up of minorities, and that women make up about 50-53% of the voters. The GOP has been indifferent to these groups, as well as gays. They have some lessons to learn, but so does Mr. Obama.

Dan_from_Phoenix
Dan_from_Phoenix

The Democrat party is full of communists, grifters, crony capitalists, and bankers addicted to free federal money.  There has never been an administration as corrupt as the Obamba regime.  When Obama loses there will be a lot of these people getting convicted.  Guilliani for AG!

fitty_three
fitty_three

@mantisdragon91  

Me and my wife just put in for Obama.

I've had enough of hearing GOPers tell us we're not patriotic and that the sky is falling.

bmwm357
bmwm357

@johnstaszak Then please explain how they are still in business. You appear to be ignorant or blind to the facts. Does the term obstructionist ring a bell? Considering what he was handed and the fact the Party of NO which has done nothing to help in any way, he has done a pretty good job. Just think how much better off we would be if the useless GOP had done the job they were elected to do. Your response is ignorant at best and sounds like GOP talking points at worst. Try doing some research before you make an ass out of your self.......again.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@johnstaszak And what is the typical economic recovery like after a historic crash not seen since the 1930's? Keep in mind the only thing that really pulled this country out of the Great Depression was World War 2. Thus we have no baseline to go one for this event and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar or a fool.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@dhcompanyman Speaking of hypocrisy you may want to look up Romney debates Romney, to see what a true lying hypocrite looks and sounds like.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@dhcompanyman I think it's even funnier that you don't understand the meaning of this piece. But than again the clueless are the prime demographic the Republicans count on.

ironyman2
ironyman2

@mantisdragon91 @Juan'tAjob Obama elected to have the surge and extended the Afghan War. Nearly 60% of the jobs that have been created during the recovery are low-wage. Does every parent want his or her child to wait tables at Applebees, or worse, Hooters. Maybe they can really move up and be an administrative assistant or hotel clerk. These are the types of jobs being created.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@thinkdifferently @NoorLucman Not even close. Our prestige and power in the world in the years when Bush was alienating the world and our allies in Western Europe. How quickly you forget the "Freedom Fries" stupidity and Rumsfeld calling France and Germany "Old Europe" And Romney couldn't even go to Britain without being called "Mitt the Twitt" by the British papers. How is he going to fare with countries that aren't our natural allies?

Alexander
Alexander

@ironyman2 The GOP also failed to consider that, no matter what, they would be unable to get more than a small fraction of one percent of the black vote due to black awareness that the doctrines of Romney's religion are bigoted.  Amazingly, this is despite the fact that many have the details wrong, due to it being passed on by word of mouth.  

It has nothing to do with black people liking the fact that a black man has achieved the Presidency,  and everything to do with the doctrines that Romney's world view is built from.

Many think that Mormons believe that blacks do not have souls.  I had recently heard this from a friend who had heard it from a friend of hers who is black.  In other words, hearsay!  Not believing it, I decided to look it up before telling her she had to be wrong.  

And it did turn out that she was wrong.  Just not in the way I thought she would be.  The actual Mormon belief is that black people are descended from Cain and the color of their skin is the mark of Cain (whereas Mormons are all descended from Abel).    They also believe that the souls of black people, being descended from the soul of Cain were cursed in a "pre-existence", which is the explanation given for why the God of planet Earth placed them in black-skinned bodies.  

Until a new revelation arrived from Earth's God in 1978, this also meant that Black people were considered unworthy by Mormons to enter their priesthood.  It's less clear how the Gods of other planets fit into all this. (All good Mormons can become Gods of their own planets after they die - - the God of Earth was a man living on the planet "Kolob" (not "Kobol" - that's from a different "theology") before he died and ascended to become the God of Earth).

I do realize that the above paragraph sounds increasingly strange the further you read, but I'm not making any of it up.  It's all available for you to find in Mormon documents that you can Google for.

To be fair, although as a white non-Mormon, I would normally never be permitted to even step foot on their temple grounds, back in the late 1970's,  I worked as a repairman, and was called upon to repair a machine that my company had sold to one of their temples.  Although the time needed to complete (and get authorized) the paperwork necessary to obtain an exception that would permit me onto their grounds to fix their machine took longer than sum of the time the repair itself took plus the half hour drive each way, they were able to accomplish it so that their machine could be fixed. They did, however, have to assign a pair of (latter day) Saints to escort me to where the machine was, and stand over my shoulder as I worked.  At least I got to charge them for the entire time that elapsed between my arrival and departure.  I always wondered if the saints would have accompanied me into the restroom if I had needed to use it.

A few years later, I was invited to the wedding reception of a Mormon friend, but because I was Jewish I was not allowed to attend the wedding itself, which was at the Mormon Temple. (As it turned out, I was wretchedly sick that weekend and so couldn't even attend the reception, and I never again saw my friend,  who seemed to have disappeared from the face of the earth)

It's kind of funny that the one thing that Romney hasn't flip-flopped on hasn't been mentioned in either party's TV spots.  Sadly, what's funny about it has a name:  "Political correctness" (if you'll pardon my use of that term as a double entendre in this context).

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ironyman2 Thank you for recognizing the problems facing the Republican party. The difference as I see it is that Obama is willing to learn from his mistakes and get better, while the Republican party keep running out the same crazies as can be seen by their selection of Atkin and Mourdok. Only a major spanking in the polls will force them to come to terms with reality and purge the party of its toxic elements. As some one who voted for George HW Bush twice, I would love to have to actual mainstream parties to chose from again.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@Dan_from_Phoenix And what are you basing that statement on? Seeing as Cheney used to have closed door meetings with oil companies to determine our energy policy and got us into a war where his former company got billions in no bid contracts, I think you may want to re eaxmine your statement that the Obama administration is the most corrupt in history.

larry
larry

@mantisdragon91 @johnstaszak The reason WW2 pulled us out of the Depression is because the Big Government policies of FDR kept the nation in Depression, a tax increase in 1936/7 caused a deep dive in productivity and the return of the Depression in full. It is because of FDR's policies the Depression lasted as long as it did. People felt good because of "make work" projects but there was no real productivity, until private industry returned.

thinkdifferently
thinkdifferently

@mantisdragon91 @johnstaszak And why did we have to wait until WWII.  Come 'mantis' is okay you can say it.  We all know.  Because it was the only way FDR could save face in a recovery he screwed up by only investing in, come on 'mantis' say it with me.....Public jobs, which had dried up after the roads and dams were built.  Participating in WWII let FDR hire Private companies to make a world class arsenal.  

Seems like the same pattern is occurring today.  Get ready for WWIII because that's what governments do when they have pushed their countries to the financial cliff.

John post this below but not sure if you saw it.

John, I learned in college that you can't have a principled based discussion with someone who has no principles. Ask 'mantis' to define the principles for which his arguments are based. He can't because there are no liberal principles just empathy. I know, I've asked many of my liberal friends and the best that any of them have come up with is they that the opposite of my argument since they know I'm a conservative.

You see 'mantis' has been commenting on this article for over a day, but only as a replier not as a contributor. He can only communicate his beliefs after you share your beliefs. Oh BTW after he has relied to you a couple of times he'll attack your intelligence. When he does that you know you've won the debate.Never defend yourself. 

 Just know people like 'matntis' are pseudo intellectual that are trying to fit in.

johnstaszak
johnstaszak

I am Republican and not clueless. I know that Obama's failed policies have lead to only 7.2% growth over nearly four years, compared to the usual 16% economic growth in the average recovery.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

And Republicans elected to invade Afghanistan and then move on to Iraq. He is just cleaning up the mess you created. Yet again. And if we want more higher paying jobs than we should take away the financial incentives for companies to move jobs oversees. You know the bill Democrats tried to pass on a couple of occasions and the Republicans blocked.

Alexander
Alexander

@thinkdifferently @mantisdragon91 @larry @johnstaszak There should be no digs at intelligence (or digs of any kind, for that matter) here.  Insults and falsehoods merely serve to dilute the strength of anyone's argument.  As has been said elsewhere (I'm hardly the first), as insults and falsehoods approach 100%, the strengths of one's arguments approach 0%.

In other words, one's ability to convince others of one's point is the direct inverse of one's inability to stick to using  facts and logic to make that point.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@thinkdifferently @mantisdragon91 @larry @johnstaszak And now you are showing your ignorance of History. Japan attacked the US because we put an embargo on them in protest for their invasion of China and attempts to annex former French territory in SE Asia. While we are it, you do realize that Hitler declared war on us right afterwards. In other words we were attacked by Japan and then declared war on by Germany and that is how we entered World War 2.

thinkdifferently
thinkdifferently

@mantisdragon91 @thinkdifferently @larry @johnstaszak No not forced America into WWII, FDR.....Have you ever asked yourself why Japan would attack the largest industrialized country's navy on foreign soil; a country which didn't show interest in entering the war.  What was Japan's reason for giving FDR cause to enter the war.....it still doesn't make any sense to me.....

thinkdifferently
thinkdifferently

@mantisdragon91 @larry @johnstaszak FRD created the social safety nets as a 'hand up' not way of life.  There is to much corruptions and fraud in our safety nets that they need to be reassessed.  

We may be rewriting your perception of history but the fact remain during the FDR era the country was climbing out of the depression until the public works programs ended.  Then the country was slipping back into a recession which forced America's entry into WWII.  The war was in full swing by the time the US came to the rescue. 

I sure your next reply will be a dig at my intelligence so have at it.......

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@larry @mantisdragon91 @johnstaszak  As long as the two of you are trying to rewrite history something else to think about. Do you realize why the Great Recession was never as bad as the Great Depression? It would be the social safety nets created by FDR as part of the new deal. The same safety nets that the Republicans have been trying to tear down ever since.

Alexander
Alexander

@mantisdragon91 @thinkdifferently @johnstaszak 

Actually, "thanks  for the insult" really are warranted.  He was being helpful to you.

Whenever someone uses insults or attacks as part of their argument,  they dilute support for their own premise. In the extreme case, when your opponent's argument is all attack or insult and no merit,  the lack of merit is completely obvious, and you win the argument by default. 

If only elections worked as sensibly .....

bmwm357
bmwm357

@johnstaszak Are you serious? This is by no means an "average recovery". You ARE clueless, you try and get anything done with no help from the "elected officials" on the other side. The GOP made the decision from the beginning not to help in any way so how does anything get done ya retard?! Good god Republicans are stupid.

thinkdifferently
thinkdifferently

@johnstaszak John, I learned in college that you can't have a principled based discussion with someone who has no principles.  Ask 'mantis' to define the principles for which his arguments are based.  He can't because there are no liberal principles just empathy.  I know, I've asked many of my liberal friends and the best that any of them have come up with is they that the opposite of my argument since they know I'm a conservative. 

You see 'mantis' has been commenting on this article for over a day, but only as a replier not as a contributor.  He can only communicate his beliefs after you share your beliefs.  Oh BTW after he has relied to you a couple of times he'll attack your intelligence.  When he does that you know you've won the debate. 

Never defend yourself.  Just know people like 'matntis' are pseudo intellectual that are trying to fit in.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@johnstaszak What is the usual growth after a financial disaster not seen since the Great Depression? And we don't have World War 2 to help jump start spending and production which was the main driver of us recovering after the last similar event.