Two Reasons to Vote for Barack Obama

Two Reasons to Vote for Barack Obama

Last week, I provided two reasons to vote for Mitt Romney– which was really more like two reasons to vote against Barack Obama. As I said last week, it seems like more people are voting against Obama than voting for Romney. It doesn’t really matter for Mitt, as he will become the 45th President of the United States even if people are voting against his opponent.

But it matters for the American people. Many of us will go to the polls and instead of voting for a candidate for President of the United States, we will vote against the other. We end up voting for the lesser of two evils.

It is very sad if you think about it. For all the blame we’ve heard about our country’s predicament, maybe the real problem is the fact that we have grown used to voting against a candidate to elect the leader of our country. It seems to me an indictment of the system if the system forces us to decide who sucks less and the winner gets to be President of the United States.

With that, I believe there are many reasons Barack Obama deserves your vote for President of the United States next week. Below are two:

1. Who is Mitt Romney?

I think I like Mitt Romney. Or at least the guy who was Mitt Romney before he started running for president and had to flip flop on most of his positions. Some examples of position changes include Mitt Romney being for stem cell research, and then was against it as he ran for president. At one time, he respected and said he would "preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose"– before he ran for president and was against it. At one time, he actually signed legislation banning assault weapons, and then ran for president and said he could not support any such legislation. He was for universal health care– and was proud of the Obama Administration’s copying his idea– before he ran for president and wanted to repeal it, although now he just wants to repeal some of it.

In 2001, he took heat for refusing to endorse a Massachusetts constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Now that he’s running for president, he is behind such a definition.

So I like the guy who is for stem cell research, for a woman’s right to choose, for banning assault weapons, and against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. So I guess I liked Mitt, circa 2006, before he started running for president and had to ditch his policy positions if not his conviction.

So who is Mitt Romney other than a guy who will say anything to get elected? What does he really believe? Whose eyes is he pulling the wool over– the people of Massachusetts or everyone else?

I can see evolving on one issue, but he has changed positions on ten major issues, not just one.

And now he promised to cut everyone’s tax burden by 20% (that’s not exactly true, because initially he said 20%, but then he called that number a "target" that of course could likely change). And to pay for the tax cut, he will eliminate tax deductions. But he won’t tell us what deductions he’s going to eliminate.

Practically, it doesn’t matter if he said he wouldn’t eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest– which is the only deduction many middle class people take advantage of– because he would just weasel out of that statement.

So what are you going to get with a Romney presidency? Other than a man whose position on issues changes with the wind, who really knows?

I can appreciate a candidate’s maturation on issues. I absolute appreciate a candidate listening to the other side and incorporating an opponent’s ideas into their own. I can’t appreciate a candidate who will pander to whomever is in front of him. Looking at his record of shifting positions, the one thing we know about him, is that he’s unknowable. Not a trait I want in a person asking for my vote for the highest office in the land.

2. The Republican Party

I don’t like the Republican Party. Better stated, I don’t like the people who control the national GOP. I don’t like how the national GOP can’t say anything negative about a man who calls a woman who wants to control her uterus a "slut."

I like Republicans. I can sit down and have a beer or a meal with Republicans and discuss issues. But the men who control that party– the men who still think the "Southern Strategy" is the key to winning elections– are bad for the GOP and bad for the country. Bad for the GOP because the continued use of that strategy will make the party a regional one. Bad for the country because the more the GOP is marginalized, the more Democrats will be able to do whatever they want. That is not a good thing. If you need proof– see how Chicago and Illinois is run without an effective Republican Party to balance power.

Since 2009, the national GOP’s stated goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Their number one goal was not to assist in getting America back on its feet after a catastrophic economic collapse that they had a hand in creating.

It’s like the GOP destroyed a home and then as the cleaning crew is trying to put it back together, they decided to sit in the yard next door and hurl epithets at the crew trying to fix their mess. And now that someone else has put the framework of a rebuilt home in place, all while the GOP drank beer and listened to Hank Williams Jr, next door, they are crying that the clean up crew didn’t do it right or fast enough.

That’s bullshit.

As Jeff Laurinaits said in last week's post:

Yet I don't blame Bush. It's been the perfect storm to dig the hole and unfortunately the bigger the hole, the more time required to climb out of the depression. Yet the past four years the Republican Party, whose policies greatly contributed to our economic demise, also created a hostile work environment that crippled our government to produce results. At a time when our country and our citizens depended on our politicians to come together, unify and act like leaders they all seemed to fight each other on everything. They all have failed our country and not only failed but failed miserably.

To me, the choice isn't about what Obama has accomplished (like the automotive bailout) or failures (sluggish growth) or what he may do (like potentially raise taxes). In my humble opinion, a vote for Mitt Romney actually doesn't condemn Obama's policies. I believe that it actually condones the despicable behavior that the Republican Party (especially the Tea Party) have exhibited these past 4 years. It rewards them for failing to work with elected officials to find common ground. The economy and job market will turn around regardless of who's in office. But voting in the party who acted like spoiled brats rewards the very behavior that will ruin our society, a government that has stood the test of time over 236 years.


I completely agree with Jeff. I will not condone what the GOP did in 2009 and 2010 when it did nothing to help the struggling economy. Republicans made a calculated decision to forsake the American economy so they could retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. The GOP should not be rewarded with the White House for betting against America.

So when you listen to the arguments over what President Obama did or failed to do as President to help your family, ask yourself what did Republicans do to help you? What policies did the GOP put forward to help our ailing economy? You may disagree with the president’s policies which may be your reason to vote for Mitt Romney. But, if the economy is the reason for your vote– Republicans should be held to account.

Those are two excellent reasons to vote to reelect President Obama. Even though he’s been running for president since 2007, we still don’t know who Mitt Romney is. Has he answered the simple question of what tax deductions he is going to eliminate? No. And that’s because he knows you aren’t going to like his answer. Just like he knows he’ll get more crap if he released his tax returns from before 2010 than he’s gotten for failing to produce them. But worse, I can’t support a party who would forsake the nation’s economy for electoral gain. Their inaction– and the calculation behind it– speaks volumes about a party that is willing to sabotage America to win an election.


Leave a comment
  • To be fair, you admitted that you had two reasons to vote against Obama and two to vote against Romney. I'll admit that I voted for Blago's opponent in 4 elections and Quinn's in two.

    However, this seems to reinforce my prior point that Romney doesn't have a plan.

    I'm also now convinced that any party would sabotage the country for politics, but this provides a reason why Obama was not as successful as he might have been, at least since Jan. 2011.

  • Jack: There are reasons to vote against Obama, he is certainly not the perfect candidate. But I agree with you. That's why I'll vote for Obama.

  • In reply to Brian C. Thomas:

    Looking at the right pane, apparently you are in the minority on Chicago Now. At least in the case of one who said "I voted correctly in 2004 and 2008, and will again" we'll know tomorrow if you will see my post there saying "unlike it taking a year to tell Dennis Byrne that he was wrong on two Supreme Court cases, I can tell you you were wrong now." But I'll probably have to wait until Wed. morning, unless Fla makes this another 2000 (and they are sure trying).

Leave a comment