Why I'll Vote for Obama (And Why You Should Too)

1.  The Economy -- This has been Governor Mitt Romney's biggest talking point by far, and, ostensibly, it's easy to see why, as the economy has been so gosh-darn bad during President Barack Obama's administration.  But -- and I admit that this has been said many times before, but it bears emphasis, considering how important this point is -- Barack Obama didn't create this situation, no matter how much Mitt Romney and the Republicans want you to believe he did.  He didn't create it, he inherited it from the previous administration, a Republican administration, and that is not a small, unimportant distinction.  I am simply astounded by how many people either forget or ignore that it was during Bush, Jr.'s administration that the economy tanked in nearly every way imaginable, from employment to the housing market, to turning Bill Clinton's enormous national surplus into an enormous national debt.  Of course, the Republicans claimed that the prosperity of the Clinton years was a delayed result of the previous Republican administration, while the economic crisis of the following Republican administration was a delayed result of Clinton's policies.  With truly remarkable hypocrisy, however, Republicans now claim that Obama is somehow solely responsible for our current situation.  Never mind that Obama inherited the economic crisis from the previous president, apparently that argument, the very same "delayed result" argument that the Republicans have been crying over and over again, that somehow no longer flies.  Let's go back to the Republican policies of Bush.  Because it was working then, right?  Oh, wait, it wasn't.  Well  . . . "let's ignore that" say the Republicans.

2.  Obamacare --  I like it.  It's not perfect, and no one, not even Obama, has ever claimed that it is.  But the Republican objections against it seem to be based on two things, fear and ignorance.  The "fear" objection in turn is based on one word, and one word only:  SOCIALISM!  My god, it's socialism!  It's such a slippery slope!  Head for the hills, we're about to turn into the Soviet Union, and no one can save you from the doom and horrors that await!

Oh, please.

The second argument against Obamacare, while also completely steeped in fear, is less about gut-wrenching code words like SOCIALISM! but more based on misinforming the public.  For example, if you think that Obamacare will rob you of the ability or right to choose your own health care providers or health insurance, guess what:  You're wrong, and your "knowledge" is based on willful lies perpetuated by the Republican Party.  Obamacare, in fact -- it's all plain for anyone who wants to read the actual laws, by the way -- does not place such restrictions.  What it does is hold health insurance companies accountable for their actions.  It restricts their ability to treat its customers unfairly.  And it provides that, over time, everyone in America will be able to have health insurance of one form or another, whether it's one they can choose and pay for on their own, or one that is provided for them by the government if you can't afford it.  And you know what, maybe that is a form of socialism.  I admit, it certainly sounds like it to me.  But you know what, it also sounds good to me.  That doesn't make me a socialist.  I believe in capitalism.  Barack Obama, despite what the Republicans would have you believe, also believes in capitalism.  But guess what, my job doesn't provide benefits, and doesn't pay enough for me to easily afford buying my own private health insurance, something desperately needed for proper medical care in this country.  So when someone comes along and says, "how does actually affordable health insurance, courtesy of the United States government, sound to you?" I say "well gosh, Mr. Hypothetical, that sounds pretty darn good," and that doesn't make me lazy or a freeloader.  I work hard.  But I also acknowledge that, in terms of health care, we are the laughing stock of the world.  Dozens of other countries -- including, notably, dozens of non-socialist countries -- have some form of socialized health care, and their citizens prosper because of it.  As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney recognized this, and introduced a universal health care plan to Mass -- and yet, now that he's running for president, he somehow demonizes Barack Obama for wanting to do the exact same thing for the nation.  I have yet to hear Romney explain how this isn't the height of hypocrisy.

3.  Romney and Bain -- A while back, Jon Stewart ripped Romney a new one for his questionable history regarding his tax returns as CEO of Bain Capital.  I'm not going to rehash the entire situation here, let's just sum up:  There at least appears to be a discrepancy between how much Romney earned, and how much taxes he paid -- or, more to the point, didn't pay -- on these earnings.  Romney's explanation, involving a "retroactive" resignation as CEO, actually explains nothing.  Stewart laid into Romney but good, but while it was good for a few laughs and maybe a water cooler debate or two, the issue seems to have been forgotten.  Now it's largely viewed as "old news."  Here's my stance:  It's not old news.  It's still a valid complaint.  It's still relevant.  The Republicans routinely bash Democrats as lacking in honesty, integrity, and transparency.  Yet here is a case where the Republican candidate has clearly behaved in a manner that lacks honesty, integrity, and transparency, and in a major, major way.  We're not talking about some street thief who picked five bucks out of someone's pocket.  We're talking about a presidential candidate who, from the looks of it, has pilfered hundreds and hundreds of dollars from his nation, and whose only defense is truly nonsensical.  And when we call him on it, the response is, "leave me alone, it's none of America's business."  Actually, yes it is.  That's our money.  And if you think it's not, fine, but let's at least hear a freakin' explanation.

4.  Romney -- Centrist or Not?  If the Obama campaign has had a hard time criticizing Romney's political positions, it's not because Romney's got the more valid points, it's because Romney himself can't seem to make up his mind on his own views.  I hesitate to use the term "flip flopping" as that's too often been leveled against politicians for even legitimate changes of opinion (and by this I mean that I have never seen anything wrong with changing your opinion as more information comes to light).  However, Romney's place on the political spectrum has been suspiciously convenient for whatever stage of the campaign he happens to be on at any given time.  When he was trying to win his party's nomination, he catered to what the Right likes to hear, about how Democrats are basically misguided at best and fiendish at worst, while the Republicans are geniuses and saints that have been unfairly demonized, blah blah, yadda yadda.  Once he got to the debates, however, and he had to appeal to the nation as a whole, he changed his tune a bit, and started outright contradicting himself.  Whereas the Great Republican Romney repeatedly bashed Obama for favoring the middle class over the extremely wealthy, the "appeal to the nation" Romney who appeared in the debates suddenly started championing the middle class, and making tax promises (concerning who would and wouldn't see tax breaks and tax increases) directly and inarguably conflicting with his earlier, Great Republican Romney promises.  When called on the fact that he routinely flubs statistics in his own favor, we get "Oh, I never said that the economy hasn't improved at all, just that it hasn't improved enough."  In response to this, I, on behalf of the American people, quote the great John Munch:  "If you're going to lie to me, at least lie with some respect!"  Because dude, you have claimed that the nation hasn't improved at all under Obama.  In fact, you have made this claim very publicly, very repeatedly.  And, after this back-tracking failed to fool anyone, you went back to making the claim, again choosing to ignore statistics on the economy.  This type of flip-flopping is not an example of legitimate changes of mind.  This is about lying.  This is about saying whatever is politically convenient for you at the time.  How Republicans can see all of this and then turn around and level "the guy just can't be trusted" comments at Obama instead, well that just boggles my mind.

5.  Romney's a Republican.  Now, this may alienate some readers as mere political party animosity, but hear me out.  Both parties have their extremists.  But of the two parties, only the Republicans routinely cater to their extremists' points of view.  Whether this is because Republicans actually agree with their more extremist elements, or merely use it for political gain, I couldn't say.  It's probably a bit of both, but that's just my guess.  But lord knows I'm sick of Republicans (and I'm not just talking about Glenn Beck, even if he is a prime example) comparing Democratic leaders to Nazis, socialist dictators, and terrorists.  Any thinking person on either side of the political divider can plainly see how ridiculous such comparisons are, and what's deplorable is how you almost never see Republican leaders calling each other out on this.  (Note:  I disagree with John McCain's politics, but he earned a lot of respect from me -- a lot of respect -- when he bucked this Republican tradition by publicly chastizing a woman for calling Obama a terrorist.)

And what do the Republican extremists want?  Well, at the risk of over-simplifying, I think of two (often overlapping) camps of Republican extremists -- the Christian extremists and the environmental extremists.  The Christian extremists want to erase the separation of church and state.  These are the people who insanely believe the concept of "intelligent design" to be some sort of compromise between religion and science, and when the educated point out that no, it's not a compromise, it's still just pure religion, the Christian extremists respond that public school science classes should then compromise by at least "teaching the controversy."  The goal is to make this the Christian nation that the extremists repeatedly and vehemently insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that our forefathers intended.  To these extremists' point of view, belief in evolution is not only wrong, it's outright evil, and pure stupidity.  And, to be blunt, putting a Republican in power in turn gives power, however indirectly, to the extremists that the Republican Party caters to and is largely made up of.  Look, I don't have anything against anyone's religious views, the problem is when large, powerful groups like the far Christian Right try to push their views onto America's youth and treat it as, pun intended, gospel truth -- with government backing, no less.

The environmental extremists are equally disturbing, perhaps more-so, considering how much their views have pervaded the mainstream.  The idea that global warming (to take by far the most relevant example) is in any way a controversy should be ludicrous, but thanks to these nut-heads, it remains an open question in far, far too many people's minds.  Let's be candid here:  The idea that global warming is "bad science" -- a phrase so often used by the Republican Party -- suggests that politicians somehow know more about science than scientists do.  The idea that global warming is a conspiracy is based on the truly bizarre idea that thousands of scientists, not just in America but from around the globe, have gotten together and, for reasons unknown, conspired to create a fabrication for, apparently, the sole purpose of aiding Democrats in their agenda.  The idea that global warming is a controversy is based on a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have a scientific consensus.  In short, every single argument Republicans have against global warming is not so much flawed as outright insane.

And now we've got a good look at the Republican attitude, which is to ignore common sense, argue against the evidence of our own experiences in the current world economy, twist history, and scoff at science -- in short, when you sum it all up, to defy all of humanity's understanding of the world.  No wonder so much of the Right complains about intellectual elitism.  As if intellect is a bad thing.

Look, I'm not saying that all Republicans are evil or stupid.  I don't believe that at all.  But I don't feel comfortable when the Republican Party caters to the bigoted, to the biased, to the willfully ignorant, and then says to me and the rest of the nation, "hey, vote for our guy!"  Uh, no, thank you.  I like that most science books teach evolution instead of "intelligent design."  I like that our current President is concerned about global warming.  I like the idea that I might one day have affordable health care.  I like that our current President is more concerned with protecting the working middle class than protecting the super-rich who can take care of themselves anyway.  Yes, the Obama administration may be flawed.  But the Republican agendas aren't just disturbing, they're outright terrifying to me.