Why does Obama deserve another 4 years?

NathanialG wrote:

I can imagine two:
Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Group ---- Low taxes, pro choice, pro science and environmentally friendly
Socially Conservative Entitlement Spending ---- Anti-abortion, Creationist, and strong social welfare programs

The second one would basically be the Sweater Vest party. The first one would include a lot of Republicans, including maybe even Governor Romney as opposed to Presidential Candidate Romney. The two parties look less like Independents than RHINOs and Rick Santorum supporters. I guess that's what happens when you build a party like a three-legged stool.

I think the problem that would solve is one of, I guess you could say "political liquidity"? Moderate Republicans can't do a deal with Democrats lest they get thrown out of the party. That SLFC looks like a 'kingmaker' party. I wonder if that SCES party would be willing to work with Democrats on issues of social justice without race and gender getting in the way.

Honestly, I think those parties would actually make the Democrats more powerful.

Ranger Rick wrote:

I'm not saying I think there's really a chance to change things, but I'm also not going to pretend voting the lesser evil between Obama and Romney is going to make an appreciable difference in improving most Americans' lives. So I choose to conscientiously object in the only way I know, and not support the messed up structure we currently have. Even though I agree that Obama would be a bit less bad than Romney. Or even if I thought the other way around. It's like choosing between 19 and 20 on a scale of 1-100.

Two things -

1) Not that I'm saying you're doing this, but the comment just reminded me of my biggest pet peeve when it comes to talking about third parties - people need to go ahead and remember that you can try and push for third parties more than every 4 years. If a third party wants to get ahead, they should remember this, too.

2) This "Obama and Romney are pretty much the same" meme needs to go ahead and die. They certainly aren't black and white, but we've somehow gone from "Obama is surprisingly right-leaning for a Democrat" (which is insightful) to "They're all the same m i rite" (which is faux-insightful and flatly wrong). Sure the Democrats and Republicans are beholden to corporate paymasters, cut the strings, power to the people, sign my hemp petition, etc etc etc. But really, the Republican Party is causing a great many problems that the Democratic Party is not and would not. It's that simple.

Ranger Rick wrote:

...and due to ballot access laws, despite being known and being able to field candidates every election cycle, the Green Party and Libertarians (and others) struggle to get on the ballot in all 50 states, since they need people to go out of their way to sign petitions to be on the ballot, whereas the Democrats and Republicans basically get on automatically.

How does that affect lower level races? If their positions are politically popular, why aren't there large numbers of green party and libertarian governors and state legislatures?

Funkenpants wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:

...and due to ballot access laws, despite being known and being able to field candidates every election cycle, the Green Party and Libertarians (and others) struggle to get on the ballot in all 50 states, since they need people to go out of their way to sign petitions to be on the ballot, whereas the Democrats and Republicans basically get on automatically.

How does that affect lower level races? If their positions are politically popular, why aren't there large numbers of green party and libertarian governors and state legislatures?

Because the cast of Predator is running out.

Bloo Driver wrote:

1) Not that I'm saying you're doing this, but the comment just reminded me of my biggest pet peeve when it comes to talking about third parties - people need to go ahead and remember that you can try and push for third parties more than every 4 years. If a third party wants to get ahead, they should remember this, too.

That is true, and I have certainly talked about this with people I know for the last 4 years and not just now, but you can only do so much to get people to care when the election horse race isn't on TV.

Bloo Driver wrote:

2) This "Obama and Romney are pretty much the same" meme needs to go ahead and die. They certainly aren't black and white, but we've somehow gone from "Obama is surprisingly right-leaning for a Democrat" (which is insightful) to "They're all the same m i rite" (which is faux-insightful and flatly wrong). Sure the Democrats and Republicans are beholden to corporate paymasters, cut the strings, power to the people, sign my hemp petition, etc etc etc. But really, the Republican Party is causing a great many problems that the Democratic Party is not and would not. It's that simple.

I am not saying they are pretty much the same; they have very different outlooks on almost everything. If I were to meet them face-to-face, I am more likely to agree with Obama than I am with Romney on policy issues. However, there's a pretty wide gulf between the president's philosophy and his actual ability to change the system or push his agenda, even if he wanted to. The Republican Party is already pretty capable of causing many problems, as you say... the last 4 years are pretty much proof that the best Obama could get in the current political climate were small victories. If Romney were president, the same congress would be making the same awful legislation, and it would almost all get passed just like it did in Obama's presidency.

So if Obama won't wield his vetoes, the only other thing he has going for him is the bully pulpit (which got him a watered-down healthcare bill which at least was something positive), or a Supreme Court justice retiring, which would give him a chance to make judicial rulings more liberal, which I do believe would be a good thing.

Would their presidencies be different? Yes. Are those differences more important than trying to do something that might shake the system up? Not to me. Not when it's the largely unchanged congress and the 2 parties causing all the harm anyways no matter who gets elected president. They'll cause the same harm regardless.

Funkenpants wrote:

How does that affect lower level races? If their positions are politically popular, why aren't there large numbers of green party and libertarian governors and state legislatures?

Isn't that just a function of money and inertia? A reasonable percentage of people will vote party line without ever bothering to learn anyone's position; the only way to beat that is with lots of cash and marketing, which the 2 parties give to their local candidates.

Its not like we can't do something about congress this election...

Ranger Rick wrote:

If Romney were president, the same congress would be making the same awful legislation, and it would almost all get passed just like it did in Obama's presidency.

I find the idea that the same legislation would have been passed extremely unlikely. I think if we had a Republican President for the past four years, we'd see things a lot worse than we did. There's a difference between getting away with what you think you can win in a fight and getting what you want when you don't even have to fight for it.

IMAGE(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu340/hellboy667/obama-donuts.jpg)

Why does Obama deserve another 4 years? For me, one reason is that he's willing to put up with another 4 years even after going through the term he's in now.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet this directly: because Obama is willing to bend over backwards to work with any Republican Party that can muster up even an ounce of respect for Obama being President.

Seriously--all we talk about is how partisanship is killing our democracy. How it's all just a game to these politicians. How all they care about is getting re-elected. Blah Blah Blah.

Then Obama comes along and, whatever his other faults, seems completely serious about working with the other side and hearing their concerns. He's rewarded for that with questions about being a seekret Muslim AND a Rev. Wright disciple at the same time, somehow. And a bunch of other things I don't even want to repeat. It almost feels like the reaction Lincoln got upon being elected: don't even give this guy a shot, he's the devil and we must do everything in our power to stop him even though he hasn't done anything yet.

So that's why Obama deserves to be President. Because we talk and talk about how much we hate that our politicians can't work together for the good of the country anymore, and a politician that clearly could and made doing so a core priority doesn't deserve to be taken down by the scorched earth tactics of the kinds of politicians we spend all our time complaining about.

I think this was a really good post that didn't get the attention it merited. I think you are spot on. If nothing else, he seemed to truly try to be the President of ALL Americans, not just those who voted for him.

Bloo Driver wrote:

2) This "Obama and Romney are pretty much the same" meme needs to go ahead and die. They certainly aren't black and white

I get it!

I was sad no one commented on that, then promptly forgot about it. Now I laughed, but am sad all over again.

I'm here to help!

wordsmythe wrote:

I'm here to chew bubblegum and correct grammar, and I'm all out of bubblegum!

Tanglebones wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:

...and due to ballot access laws, despite being known and being able to field candidates every election cycle, the Green Party and Libertarians (and others) struggle to get on the ballot in all 50 states, since they need people to go out of their way to sign petitions to be on the ballot, whereas the Democrats and Republicans basically get on automatically.

How does that affect lower level races? If their positions are politically popular, why aren't there large numbers of green party and libertarian governors and state legislatures?

Because the cast of Predator is running out.

Third party candidates have had a significant presence in Minnesota since at least '98. Ventura won in '98 and pretty much every governors race since has been decided by which candidate had fewer voters pulled away by the third-party candidate. Franken basically won because of a strong performance by the conservative-leaning independent.