I am an unabashed aisle crosser.
There have been years when I have voted for the Republican candidate. And there have been years I have voted for the Democrat. There have even been years when I voted for neither. And threw my support behind a bat house crazy Texas billionaire.
How can you not like a man who once said, " If you see a snake, just kill it -- don't appoint a committee on snakes."
A Ross Perot presidency might not have been the best, but it would have been the most colorful.
This year, I voted for President Obama. And I'd like to explain why.
I have a college degree. I stay fairly informed on the issues. And I can carry my own in a discussion about politics. But all that said, you could pour what I know about Economics into a thimble and still have plenty of room for the thumb of large Samoan football player.
I don't know whether Romney's financial plan or President Obama's plan made better sense. And frankly when you're talking about billions and trillions of dollars, I don't think even the most informed among us have a clue.
But this election came down to something more important than money. It was about people.
As I have mentioned before, I live in a house with my wife, my dog Nelly, and two teenage daughters. I am the Mayor of Estrogenville. Until I get my prescription for Viagra refilled, I'm pretty sure my wife will not be getting pregnant anytime soon. The story is not the same however for my daughters, who have been known to make poor choices on occasion.
Should that situation come to fruition, I don't want the President, a governor, a senator, or any pinhead of any political stripe, taking any of my family's choices away. Particularly while waving a bible in my face.
I don't live my life according to the laws of your religion. I don't even live my life according to the laws of my religion.
Now let's talk about homosexuality.
My uncle is gay. I have friends that are gay. We know gay couples from the elementary school that have started a family and are raising children. It stuns me that they do not enjoy some of the same civil rights as I do. It saddens me that a candidate and a political party would want to enact laws that further stigmatize and marginalize these people.
I know it's hyperbolic to play the Nazi card but in this case it's not a metaphor. Delegitimizing people is exactly what Hitler did in 1933.
Had they not been wearing Brooks Brothers suits, men like Romney, Akin, and Murdock, could easily have been mistaken for Taliban clerics preaching patriarchy in the foothills of Waziristan.
I don't know what the next four years has in store but I do know it won't involve the President setting policy based on the Old Testament or the New Testament. Or, had Mitt been elected, the new New Testament.
Though I am intrigued by this thing called polygamy.
5 comments:
Romney? Taliban? Anti-abortion? Really?
You do realize he was the governor of Massachusetts, right? Nobody gets elected Governor of this state unless he's on the left side of the left half of moderate. And that would be considered pretty conservative.
I personally don't think he was the best choice for President, but he's actually a pretty decent man. The Father of Obama-care for God's sake.
Bob,
The moderate that ran Massachusetts was not the same candidate that ran for President.
He cow-towed to the religious right (who sound a lot like the Taliban to this atheist) and in doing so alienated a lot of people. He was anti-abortion. And with Supreme Court justices to be nominated shortly threatened Roe v Wade.
If the Republicans were smart they would move away (as in smaller government) from abortion, gay rights and drugs. And run the other way when the topic of evolution and rape come up.
Romney could have won this election. He lost it because of schmucks like Akin, Murdock and Santorum.
Mayor of Estrogenville. Royce Hall, '92.
Rich,
A few individuals, who happen to be Republicans, made stupid comments about rape and abortion. They don't speak for the GOP or most Republicans.
But you, like many others, bought into the Democratic Party's Big Lie. Nowhere in the 2012 Republican Party Platform does it include language calling to take away the right of a woman to choose an abortion.
What did it say?
It opposes tax payer funding of abortions. Not making abortions illegal, except for those used to select the sex of a child. Do you have a problem with either of these positions?
I'm sorry you're concerned that your teenage daughters are unlikely to avoid getting pregnant. But do you expect tax payers to have to pay for their mistakes? If I were you I'd be more concerned with the economy your daughters will inherit after they get out of school.
Anonymous
P.S. Signing this Anonymous because I work in the ad business and know I'd get black listed for such "heresy."
Here's a link to the GOP 2012 platform, http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
@Anonymous. With regard to hiding your identity, you give me far too much credit. No one reads this thing. And no one is getting blacklisted because of a comment written here.
However Romney ad Ryan both put abortion on the table. And both are vehemently against it. And Ryan was in favor of making IVF much more difficult. (another issue I take to heart)
Again, this is nothing more than government intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. And it cost them votes.
I don't know if you noticed, but the economy is growing, the unemployment rate is dropping, and the stock market is back to pre-2008 levels.
From a big picture point of view, Democratic lies notwithstanding, I prefer this direction to a direction fueled by religious fervor and patriarchal ignorance.
Post a Comment