Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in my late 20s. I'm smart, keep up with current events, can hold my own in a discussion. But for some reason, I am terrified to cast a vote in the upcoming election. I know I must do so, but frankly, I can see no good outcome. Obama is probably the better choice, but honestly, he hasn't impressed me and I'm not sure where the next 4 years will take us. But surely Romney can't be better? I've never been so paralyzed when it came to making this decision before. Probably because in my first election, I was just parroting my parents and peers and voted Bush (grew up in a red state) and in the next 2, he/his party was so obviously the poor choice that voting against him was easy. Is this just part of getting older and realizing there's so much I DON'T know, or is the upcoming election really as indecisive as it is for me? I happily voted Obama in 2008, but I can't cast my ballot for him quite so easily this time. But I also have a lot of misgivings about Romney.

I'm 40 and right there with you. In my 20s I pretty much voted Democrat accross the board. In my 30s it varied based on Congressional, Senatorial candidates, etc and by the end of my 30s I don't think any political party describes where I stand. I will vote, but I feel that Obama is taking us down the wrong road and I'm ready for change, but don't think that Romney is the change I'm looking for. I fear for our country with the rising debt, decreasing military, countless people who are unemployed, rising food prices and health care changes that are scaring doctors away in droves. There is a better way to make sure everyone has access to good healthcare, there must be.

Oh and a great big fuck you to Obama for not doing more to protect us from the great unknown GMOs and for not doing more to ensure the safety of our food supply. I would have expected most republicans to look the other, but a democrat, let alone Obama? C'mon? Let me guess...he'll do more if we give him a 2nd term right?

Do you sincerely believe that Romney, if elected will address GMOs? Will he help the healthcare situation? Is he supportive of the poor and middle class, who dominate this country? Would he add to the problem or is he part of the solution,? If you are honest with yourself, no, Obama is far from perfect, but if you think things suck now, they will be far worse with Romney in office.

Anonymous wrote:If you are a self- loathing white person , vote for Obama.

wtf? and why does his race matter? and, by the way he is 50% white!

Anonymous wrote:I am in my late 20s. I'm smart, keep up with current events, can hold my own in a discussion. But for some reason, I am terrified to cast a vote in the upcoming election. I know I must do so, but frankly, I can see no good outcome. Obama is probably the better choice, but honestly, he hasn't impressed me and I'm not sure where the next 4 years will take us. But surely Romney can't be better? I've never been so paralyzed when it came to making this decision before. Probably because in my first election, I was just parroting my parents and peers and voted Bush (grew up in a red state) and in the next 2, he/his party was so obviously the poor choice that voting against him was easy. Is this just part of getting older and realizing there's so much I DON'T know, or is the upcoming election really as indecisive as it is for me? I happily voted Obama in 2008, but I can't cast my ballot for him quite so easily this time. But I also have a lot of misgivings about Romney.

I'm 40 and right there with you. In my 20s I pretty much voted Democrat accross the board. In my 30s it varied based on Congressional, Senatorial candidates, etc and by the end of my 30s I don't think any political party describes where I stand. I will vote, but I feel that Obama is taking us down the wrong road and I'm ready for change, but don't think that Romney is the change I'm looking for. I fear for our country with the rising debt, decreasing military, countless people who are unemployed, rising food prices and health care changes that are scaring doctors away in droves. There is a better way to make sure everyone has access to good healthcare, there must be.

Oh and a great big fuck you to Obama for not doing more to protect us from the great unknown GMOs and for not doing more to ensure the safety of our food supply. I would have expected most republicans to look the other, but a democrat, let alone Obama? C'mon? Let me guess...he'll do more if we give him a 2nd term right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with a lot of this. I'm also disappointed in Obama and would have thought seriously about voting for Mitt Romney, moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Not sure where they stashed that guy, but he's nowhere to be found. I expect that candidate would have at a minumum given Obama a run for his money, and potentially won the election handily. (Of course, he's have never made it past the Iowa caucuses, but that's a different discussion.) This version, Romney 2.0 (or more accurately, Romney 272.0, given how many times he's changed his positions), is not going to get my vote. The prospect of a Republican president who has not show the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the extreme elements in his own party, combined with an increasingly conservative (and militant) GOP-controlled House, the possibility of a GOP controlled Senate, and the age of many of the Supreme Court justices makes this decision easly (for me, anyway) when you distill it down to those points.

No, unfortunately Romney is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican party has shifted so far right that we moderate Republicans are not considered not just moderate Democrats, but liberals. Romney's problem is that if he sticks with his moderate conservative message, he will alienate his hard-core Republican base. And unfortunately, hard-core Republicans will abstain from voting as a general protect rather than vote for a moderate or liberal. So he has no change to beat Obama with a moderate Republican stance. He will lose more votes from the Conservative right than he will gain from the moderates and the independents. Conversely, if it goes too far right, he also has no chance because the moderates and the independents will bail and likely, they will actively vote FOR his opponent, Obama. So, he is stuck in a conservative stance, flip-flopping his message to appeal to the audience of the moment and hope that he doesn't lose too many votes from both sides over the very wishy-washy message that changes daily.

Basically, the Tea Party is killing the Republican party from the inside. They are making it so that *NO* republican can win on the national stage, only on the local/state level where there are enough like-minded conservatives to force the candidate through. However, if the Conservative right does not make some change on the national level, it will likely be a long time before another Republican sees the White House.

I’m the PP to whom you responded, and I agree with much of what you said. To get the nomination, any GOP candidate had to run to the right, and in most elections, I also agree that the base would stay home if they sense disloyalty. But this is not most elections. I don’t care how much Romney moderates his positions, I just don’t believe the base would pass up a chance to vote against Obama (not for Romney, but against Obama). In other situations, with other incumbents, sure – but the people of whom we are speaking won’t pass up a chance to vote against a Kenyan socialist Muslim who is a long-time member of a Christian church whose minister preached anti-American values (wait, how does that work again? never mind . . . ) and who is bent on destroying America and hates the very notion of the American Dream (although he is living it) and American Exceptionalism (although he is the embodiment of it).

Of course, there’s likely extensive polling on this point, and as I said, I agree that the base would stay home in most situations, so I’m likely wrong. If that’s the case, however, it just befuddles me to think that the far right-wing, which is mile and miles more organized and effective than the left wing in this country, has such a huge collective blind spot. They should read their Voltaire – perfect is the enemy of the good.

Actually, Voltaire is a bit of a stretch - they should just read SOMETHING. But I digress.

And as you said, if the GOP continues tacking to the right, combined with changing demographics and an increase of the Hispanic population in Florida, Arizona and (gulp) Texas, the GOP will become a regional party incapable of electing a national candidate.

Anonymous wrote:Op is troll, but continue.

I'm not a troll, I swear!

Op is troll, but continue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with a lot of this. I'm also disappointed in Obama and would have thought seriously about voting for Mitt Romney, moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Not sure where they stashed that guy, but he's nowhere to be found. I expect that candidate would have at a minumum given Obama a run for his money, and potentially won the election handily. (Of course, he's have never made it past the Iowa caucuses, but that's a different discussion.) This version, Romney 2.0 (or more accurately, Romney 272.0, given how many times he's changed his positions), is not going to get my vote. The prospect of a Republican president who has not show the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the extreme elements in his own party, combined with an increasingly conservative (and militant) GOP-controlled House, the possibility of a GOP controlled Senate, and the age of many of the Supreme Court justices makes this decision easly (for me, anyway) when you distill it down to those points.

No, unfortunately Romney is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican party has shifted so far right that we moderate Republicans are not considered not just moderate Democrats, but liberals. Romney's problem is that if he sticks with his moderate conservative message, he will alienate his hard-core Republican base. And unfortunately, hard-core Republicans will abstain from voting as a general protect rather than vote for a moderate or liberal. So he has no change to beat Obama with a moderate Republican stance. He will lose more votes from the Conservative right than he will gain from the moderates and the independents. Conversely, if it goes too far right, he also has no chance because the moderates and the independents will bail and likely, they will actively vote FOR his opponent, Obama. So, he is stuck in a conservative stance, flip-flopping his message to appeal to the audience of the moment and hope that he doesn't lose too many votes from both sides over the very wishy-washy message that changes daily.

Basically, the Tea Party is killing the Republican party from the inside. They are making it so that *NO* republican can win on the national stage, only on the local/state level where there are enough like-minded conservatives to force the candidate through. However, if the Conservative right does not make some change on the national level, it will likely be a long time before another Republican sees the White House.

I think it's even more than just a matter of alienating conservatives today.

The primary process is owned by the wingnuts. In order to make it through that, he has to publicly commit to any number of crazy ideas. And then it's all part of his record. If he sticks with it, he is screwed. If he tries to move to the middle, it's such a radical change that no one knows what to believe about him anymore.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with a lot of this. I'm also disappointed in Obama and would have thought seriously about voting for Mitt Romney, moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Not sure where they stashed that guy, but he's nowhere to be found. I expect that candidate would have at a minumum given Obama a run for his money, and potentially won the election handily. (Of course, he's have never made it past the Iowa caucuses, but that's a different discussion.) This version, Romney 2.0 (or more accurately, Romney 272.0, given how many times he's changed his positions), is not going to get my vote. The prospect of a Republican president who has not show the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the extreme elements in his own party, combined with an increasingly conservative (and militant) GOP-controlled House, the possibility of a GOP controlled Senate, and the age of many of the Supreme Court justices makes this decision easly (for me, anyway) when you distill it down to those points.

No, unfortunately Romney is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican party has shifted so far right that we moderate Republicans are not considered not just moderate Democrats, but liberals. Romney's problem is that if he sticks with his moderate conservative message, he will alienate his hard-core Republican base. And unfortunately, hard-core Republicans will abstain from voting as a general protect rather than vote for a moderate or liberal. So he has no change to beat Obama with a moderate Republican stance. He will lose more votes from the Conservative right than he will gain from the moderates and the independents. Conversely, if it goes too far right, he also has no chance because the moderates and the independents will bail and likely, they will actively vote FOR his opponent, Obama. So, he is stuck in a conservative stance, flip-flopping his message to appeal to the audience of the moment and hope that he doesn't lose too many votes from both sides over the very wishy-washy message that changes daily.

Basically, the Tea Party is killing the Republican party from the inside. They are making it so that *NO* republican can win on the national stage, only on the local/state level where there are enough like-minded conservatives to force the candidate through. However, if the Conservative right does not make some change on the national level, it will likely be a long time before another Republican sees the White House.

He has not moved back to the middle because he has etch a sketched himself so often, he does not know the middle or his own positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As one who is not totally happy with Obama, I tend to forgive him somewhat on grounds that the President is limited in his choices, by the inertia of governmental organism itself, by the Congress, and by the fact that he represents all of us. Keep in mind what the President can truly affect, and among those things, try to separate out those where we actually know enough to judge what is the right choice (for me, that pretty much excludes the economy, which nobody really understands), and make your decision based on what remains, such as the Supreme Court appointments and a perhaps a few other things (none of which I can think of offhand).

One other thing. Although I will probably vote for Obama (unless, as a DC voter, I decide to make a "statement"), I don't think you should place too much weight on the fact that the only pro-Romney comments so far have been asinine; they all come from the same air-head. There are thoughtful conservatives on DCUM, and perhaps you'll hear from some of them.

I agree with a lot of this. I'm also disappointed in Obama and would have thought seriously about voting for Mitt Romney, moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Not sure where they stashed that guy, but he's nowhere to be found. I expect that candidate would have at a minumum given Obama a run for his money, and potentially won the election handily. (Of course, he's have never made it past the Iowa caucuses, but that's a different discussion.) This version, Romney 2.0 (or more accurately, Romney 272.0, given how many times he's changed his positions), is not going to get my vote. The prospect of a Republican president who has not show the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the extreme elements in his own party, combined with an increasingly conservative (and militant) GOP-controlled House, the possibility of a GOP controlled Senate, and the age of many of the Supreme Court justices makes this decision easly (for me, anyway) when you distill it down to those points.

Seriously. I would have still voted for Obama, but the moderate Romney wasn't half bad. I wouldn't have been terrified of him had he won. And in a general election, candidates usually move back to center in their campaign, but he hasn't done that. Very odd.

Anonymous wrote:As one who is not totally happy with Obama, I tend to forgive him somewhat on grounds that the President is limited in his choices, by the inertia of governmental organism itself, by the Congress, and by the fact that he represents all of us. Keep in mind what the President can truly affect, and among those things, try to separate out those where we actually know enough to judge what is the right choice (for me, that pretty much excludes the economy, which nobody really understands), and make your decision based on what remains, such as the Supreme Court appointments and a perhaps a few other things (none of which I can think of offhand).

One other thing. Although I will probably vote for Obama (unless, as a DC voter, I decide to make a "statement"), I don't think you should place too much weight on the fact that the only pro-Romney comments so far have been asinine; they all come from the same air-head. There are thoughtful conservatives on DCUM, and perhaps you'll hear from some of them.

I agree with a lot of this. I'm also disappointed in Obama and would have thought seriously about voting for Mitt Romney, moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Not sure where they stashed that guy, but he's nowhere to be found. I expect that candidate would have at a minumum given Obama a run for his money, and potentially won the election handily. (Of course, he's have never made it past the Iowa caucuses, but that's a different discussion.) This version, Romney 2.0 (or more accurately, Romney 272.0, given how many times he's changed his positions), is not going to get my vote. The prospect of a Republican president who has not show the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the extreme elements in his own party, combined with an increasingly conservative (and militant) GOP-controlled House, the possibility of a GOP controlled Senate, and the age of many of the Supreme Court justices makes this decision easly (for me, anyway) when you distill it down to those points.

Anonymous wrote:OP, definitely go vote. There are many local offices and issues that are important as well. It's not all about the pres.

Obama has disappointed me a lot as well. But my values more closely align with Obama/democrat in general. I'm 45 and have voted in many elections where I'm not enthused about any particular candidate. The overwhelming love and crazy enthusiasm people felt for Obama in 2008 is the exception, not the norm. Get used to being underwhelmed.

Thanks. I think you really nailed my issue. I suppose the 2008 election was an anomaly and I was young enough to assume it wasn't, and that every year it would be easy to make a decision on who to vote for. I will likely cast my vote for Obama again, despite him not being a "perfect" candidate. I guess a candidate who can do 1 or 2 things you like and agree with is better than a candidate who will do 0. I'm not thrilled with most of what Obama's accomplished (or not accomplished...) in office but I just think so differently than Romney on so many things that I can't see aligning myself with him.

Anonymous wrote:Take this (admittedly biased) quiz:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

It worked for me. 92% Obama. 1% Santorum.

I am a liberal Democrat, but please, that quiz is ridiculously biased! It is a joke.

OP, definitely go vote. There are many local offices and issues that are important as well. It's not all about the pres.

Obama has disappointed me a lot as well. But my values more closely align with Obama/democrat in general. I'm 45 and have voted in many elections where I'm not enthused about any particular candidate. The overwhelming love and crazy enthusiasm people felt for Obama in 2008 is the exception, not the norm. Get used to being underwhelmed.

OP, Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is no fan of Obama. The reality is that American Jews are much more moderate than Israelis--they don't want war with Iran. Netanyahu is out of touch and a bully, IMO--in no way has Obama ever or will ever cater to him. Obama acts in the interests of America and only America. And correct me if I am wrong, but the activities in Libya were considered a police action and were sanctioned by the UN--so was it necessary? Perhaps. Obama seems to take an extremely long view in military actions and I doubt anyone here, unless they are cabinet members could presume to know for sure what is absolutely necessary at any given point strategically speaking.