Give me one good reason to vote for Obama this November

[UnrepentantLiberal]

I get the Supreme Court picks and that Republicans are evil. But what will he actually do that a liberal would care about? Will he change or will it be four more years of a seething dislike for liberals? I would honestly like to know.

I have no doubt that he'll be reelected, but does he want to go down as a present day FDR or as a pretty good DLC Dem?

[Tax Man]

1. if you have to ask -

you're not paying attention.

[FarLeftFist]

144. 2 SUPREME COURT NOMINEES!

[dkf]

2. You would protect us from having a cipher for President.

That is good enough for me.

[Selatius]

3. You pretty much named the primary reason to vote for Obama. The Supreme Court.

He campaigned as a moderate, and rightly so.

The people gave him a Senate that wasn't very liberal. A good number of right-wing Democrats blocked more liberal proposals from getting to the White House. Remember what happened to the Public Option? Yeah, that Senate killed the idea. They also loaded up the stimulus package with lots of pork barrel spending and special interest tax cuts when a real shot in the arm required something more akin to an FDR-style jobs program.

If you want Obama to be more liberal, you would have to shove a very liberal Senate in his path. Give me a liberal Senate with as large a majority as the one that Franklin Roosevelt had, and you would get your Second Bill of Rights.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. Thank you because I feel like a broken record always repeating the fact that Obama NEVER

1) Campaigned or had a record that was in any way liberal or progressive!
2) Enjoyed a honeymoon period, much less a majority in Congress that was liberal/progressive! In other words, we gave him a Blue Dog Senate and so we got Blue Dog policies!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

129. Not true.

He campaigned as a progressive and has governed as a blue dog.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

131. No! He told us that we were going to Afghanistan!

And was hawkish on Pakistan! Not a progressive policy position! During the campaign he made some harsh statements against teachers union. Not a progressive position! He told us that he would protect gun rights and in fact hasn't done anything about the assault weapons ban. Indeed he said that he's not anti-war but against "stupid wars." And his record as a state legislator demonstrated that he was more than willing to seek comprises with the other side. Not a progressive!

I think this president is center-left but more of a pragmatist than anything else. He's not a visionary in the traditional sense. Rather he looks at what is possible and goes from there. If he's looking at a Senate where there's no possibility of getting liberal policies passed he gets what he can passed, then works incrementally fr there. Therefore if he's confronted with a more progressive House and Senate and has the VOTES for more progressive policies then expect him to go that way. That's my take on things. And without the pressures of reelection he'll be freer to act more progressively. But I never thought that he was the liberal that everyone thought he was. (His books gave me a clue!) However I think he will be more progressive if given the right tool: a progressive House and Senate.

[Selatius]

134. I never really saw that from Obama. Edwards and Kucinich were more liberal.

From what I remember of 2008, those two were far more willing than Obama to criticize free trade and speak about the haves and have nots in America. Both Hillary Clinton's health care proposal and John Edwards health care proposals were more substantial than what Obama proposed on the campaign trail, and Kucinich believed in John Conyers' effort to expand Medicare with his Medicare For All bill. Obama never signed onto that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

169. Thank you for this! I had forgotten about the free trade issue. One clue that he didn't campaign as

a liberal was his unclear stance on dealing with NAFTA and other free trade issues. For what it's worth, Hillary Clinton was just as vague on that issue. But I agree: both Edwards and Kucinich were more liberal on some economic and social issues than either Obama or Clinton.

[sendero]

166. You are completely and totally WRONG..

.... and are obviously just repeating what some other totally wrong person posted here.

I'm not going to bother to elaborate, anyone with 10 minutes and google can find his campaign speeches and the rhetoric is not just progressive it is very very much so.

I don't care much whether Obama gets reelected or not, I think that other than rhetoric he and Romney are peas in a pod. I also no longer think the presidency in this country really has much actual power, the president is now a figurehead.

But the idea that Obama "never claimed to be progressive" is PURE BULLSHIT and not only that - as soon as his campaign began for 2012 he started ratcheting up the old progressive lip service again. It's really kind of laughable.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

168. Show me links and provide EVIDENCE that he ever campaigned as a progressive. In fact, show me

evidence as a liberal.

I was a staunch Dennis Kucinich supporter for one reason and one reason only: He was the TRUE liberal in the primaries. When Dennis dropped out, I moved over to Edwards solely on his "Two Americas" message.

The one reason why I couldn't support Obama outright was due to his lack of liberalism.

Read BOTH of his books! He essentially explains that he doesn't have a particular ideology that he subscribes to. Obama is a pragmatist. That's it. He is non-ideological. Read his books! Study his legislative record in the IL Senate.

I fully support President Obama now because he is the closest to a liberal/progressive that we've had in a very long time. Disagree if you will. Don't vote for him if you can't. But that's where I stand.

What separates my post from yours is that I actually provided EVIDENCE. You have done nothing but issue ad hominem attacks. You have not provided EVIDENCE!!

[Uben]

4. President Romney

that oughta do it!

[LeftishBrit]

5. One good reason? Mitt Romney!

[Danmel]

6. I will give you 30 million reasons

The people who will lose their health insurance if romney wins. And thats just the start.

[GoCubsGo]

32. Add to that....

...the millions of people who will lose out thanks to his proposed cuts to the government, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak, Planned Parenthood... His plan for us will revert the country back to the 1920s.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/romney-economic-plan-cuts-government-taxes/393901

[Luminous Animal]

7. He's dreamy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. heh.

[Webster Green]

8. The alternatives are much worse.

It's a no-brainer for me, even though I don't care much for him at all.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

10. As expected...

Not much "hope" and "change" this time. What will his slogan be this year? Do you want me or the guy who's even worse?

[joshcryer]

15. You thought there was "hope" and "change" last time?

Man it never ceases to amaze me how many people were duped.

Obama is largely irrelevant, it's Congress that matters.

[Marr]

82. Obama is very relevant-- but he's right of center.

[NoMoreWarNow]

136. Yep-- though center as defined 20-30 years ago

[tabbycat31]

70. status quo you can believe in

[UnrepentantLiberal]

100. Yes we can...

do business as usual.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. No choice when it comes down to it. RMoney would be a disaster.

I don't expect much from Obama in a second term.

DLC Dem? Well he's certainly no FDR.

[Mister Ed]

12. "seething dislike of liberals"?

Most of the people claiming to know what President Obama thinks and feels are on the right ("deep-seated hatred of white people", etc., etc.) I guess we have a few here on the left as well.

Those who are angry and disappointed that Obama has not pursued more liberal policies will hear no argument from me, but I have to object when someone attributes emotions of their own choosing to him.

[JHB]

23. +1

[Chorophyll]

66. +100.

Well said. I don't find President Obama to be "seething" which much of anything, and I have to wonder at people who do.

As for the OP: if the Supreme Court isn't enough for you, I don't know what is.

[Johonny]

77. polls seem to suggest said liberals

favor Obama by huge margins. So if he hates them that much, the message appears to be getting lost.

[SmellyFeet]

91. Actually polls suggest Democratic liberals support President Obama.

I suspect that many Democrats call themselves liberals but have no idea what it means.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

102. ^This^

[Johonny]

125. I get it either liberals hate obama

or they aren't "real" liberals. The old heads I win, tails you lose. I don't play that game. The facts suggest Obama does just fine among liberal voters. Most liberals on the DU find fault with Obama on policy, but they overwhelmingly favor him. The mythical animal you claim to see simply have no proof of existing. I refuse to play into you fantasy game and so do many here at the reality based DU. Sorry.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

128. Think whatever you want.

I'll do the same.

[Number23]

143. Well said!

[SmellyFeet]

149. Where's your proof?

You claim that "facts suggest" but you don't show us where.

[mythology]

173. The fact that every poll shows Obama with not simply a majority, but a large

majority of support among those who identify as liberals. Such polls have been repeatedly posted here.

[mythology]

174. As they say no true scotsman

But it's easier to dismiss inconvenient things than to adjust one's world view.

[Johonny]

124. or Obama is popular with liberals

and some people don't want to accept it.

[SmellyFeet]

148. Not any liberal I know.

And I know quite a few.

[cali]

13. uh guess what? progressives and liberals care a great deal about the SCOTUS.

I'm astonished you didn't know that. How about the veto pen? Do you give a shit about people on food stamps? Well, then there's another good reason to vote for him: The poor and disenfranchised. Mitt and a republican congress will destroy the poor and disenfranchised. Did you know that last week the pukesters in the house voted to cut 300 billion from the food stamps program?

Oh, and it's incredibly silly not to grasp that Obama could well be defeated in November.

[goclark]

101. You are exactly right

Interesting responses hum....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

110. I work for HUD and last week, R-Money bragged about how he will "get rid of HUD" in the future...

an agency that his father led! This agency serves the needs of the poor, homeless, downtrodden.

If the OP is a true liberal or progressive, then here's yet another reason to vote for Obama with enthusiasm!!

p.s. Especially since he is trying to increase HUD's budget. So much for his "seething hatred" for us liberals. *rolling eyes*

[NNN0LHI]

14. I don't ever want any rapture ready Republican possessing the nuclear launch codes

That good enough for you?

Don

[freedom fighter jh]

16. I wouldn't make assumptions about the Supreme Court.

If corporate interests are controlling him, they will make sure they keep their majority on the SCOTUS.

But Obama has already appointed two solidly left justices? Yeah, and look how much difference it has made. The five-justice right-wing majority wins every time. If a right-wing justice retires, the next appointment, unlike the last two, will make a real difference. Will Obama appoint another lefty when it matters?

Given Obama's record of support for the corporate agenda, I fear that those who vote for him for SCOTUS reasons may get disappointed.

[JHB]

21. Compare Obama picks with Romney picks

Disappointment trumps disaster.

[Romulox]

44. Agreed. Obama's SCOTUS picks have been MODERATE, at very best. nt

[DonCoquixote]

58. ah more sotomayor and kagan hate

even though both are qualified, and Sotomayor has actually offended billionaires back in the baseball strike.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. I'd be down with you, except for one problem: With the Senate that Obama had

you'll have to tell me exactly how he was going to get more *liberals* on the court. And yes, he would have faced issues within his own party, too!

The problem is the Congress: House and Senate. Give the man a more progressive Congress and perhaps you will have your liberal judges.

[11 Bravo]

94. Romney wants a BORK on the court! End of discussion.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. Democrats are almost always forced to pick more moderate judges. Why? Because

they seldom can get liberal judges through the Senate. Why is that so difficult to understand?

If we elect more liberals to the Senate, they will *confirm* judges that the president puts forth. But if you have a Senate that is dominated by center-right, corporatists Democrats, then you'll get center-right or center-left results! DUH!!!!

[vaberella]

17. Not worth responding if you have to ask. Just don't vote for him.

Go for Mickey Mouse.

[harun55]

20. vote for obama

It is lso good one lolllllll

[UnrepentantLiberal]

71. I live in New Jersey.

[tabbycat31]

76. Even more of a reason to vote

NJ has some interesting races down the ticket this year, and with increased turnout in a presidential year, a chance to take out some GOP congressmen despite a map gerrymandered by them.

In NJ all politics is local. 2012 will be the dress rehearsal for next year, when Christie can be sent packing.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

83. Sending Christie packing would be a very good thing.

[tabbycat31]

113. the infrastructure to send him packing has to be built this year

Corzine was unable to tap Obama's infrastructure in 2009 and the state has suffered ever since. We can't allow that to happen again.

[vaberella]

86. I don't know what that means to me.

Your fellow NJers voted for Christie...sad insight into the residents of that state.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

87. The former gov was a corrupt tool of the 1%

The current gov is just a tool. NJ politics are mostly corrupt and sad. It's Jersey...

But I live near the light rail and can be in Manhattan in 30 minutes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. Christie killed the speed rail project that would have created tens of thousands of jobs.

Corzine was corrupt. There's no question about it. But Chris Christie is not only corrupt; he's a tool for the 1%, and if he could, he'd layoff all public workers, instead giving billions in tax breaks to his Wall Street buddies.

Honestly, I can't believe that you defend this guy, and yet you're disappointed in Obama? I don't understand that logic.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

116. I said he was a tool.

How is that defending him? I will definitely vote to oust him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. And you will also vote to rid the NJ state legislature of wingnut Republicans?

And you will also vote in November to rid the congress of NJ women and men who are wingnuts, right?

And you will also work to elect more progressives/liberals to represent the state of New Jersey, right?

That is your answer.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

109. If you're so disappointed in Obama, why not work hard to defeat those GOP members

of the state legislature and congressmen and women are not serving your state well?

Why not work hard to ensure that more progressives are elected to represent your state?

The more progressive Democrats there are at the state level as well as the congressional level, the more likely that you'll get the progressive outcomes you, me and all of us seek.

[CakeGrrl]

162. Exactly. If an adult can't figure it out for themselves by now, tough.

[harun55]

18. obama vote

you have not other option rather than this . Romeny is not so good as a leader

[trumad]

19. Because you're a dumbass if you don't!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

72. I live in New Jersey.

[JHB]

22. You've already given yourself two. If you can't vote FOR him, then...

...vote FOR keeping Romney out of the Oval Office. It's really that simple. Right now, there are no alternatives. We can work to build alternatives for the future, but in 2012 it's about holding back the foaming loons and their billionaire backers.

[rucky]

24. You have no doubt he'll be reelected...

without your vote? If you're thinking that, then plenty others are too. Which makes me not so sure that Obama has this in the bag - because of attitudes like this.

How will you feel if you don't vote and Romney wins?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. He will, as a centrist, bring us all together.

Other answers can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100298462

[kenny blankenship]

89. Under the Reaganite status quo

do it yourself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

142. Why not the Bush status quo? The second one, of course.

[ann---]

26. He's not

Romney? No other reason for a real liberal to vote for him.

[Thrill]

27. I think you will no doubt see a more Progrssive Obama

If he doesn't have to worry about reelection

[zipplewrath]

52. Why?

Really, what would lead you to believe that? He's shown no small amount of hostility towards hard left positions. He appears VERY comfortable with his centrism. Quite honestly, you have to be fairly "insulting" of him to suggest that he has some how not been accomplishing much of what he wants to accomplish. It means his first 4 years were nothing more than doing what he was "allowed" to do by congress. I'm not sure he'd see it that way. He may not have accomplished everything he wanted to, but I'm sure he'd see his first term as accomplishing much of what he tried to do. And that he tried to do the things he wanted to do.

[JNelson6563]

56. Here's why "lame duck" shows promise

Here's what happened during the lame duck session of Congress between November 2010 elections and close of the session:


Taxes—Passage of an $850 billion tax package to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years, reduce payroll taxes for one year, and re-institute the estate tax.

(No doubt there's much to dislike on this first item but it was the price paid~that can be undone with a Dem Congress voted in in 2012~for what came after.)

Unemployment Benefits—Tied to the tax bill, extension of unemployment benefits for the next 13 months.

(I don't know about you but I am one of millions of Americans who still has a home, car and necessities thanks to this one item. Dismiss it as nothing if you really see that as it's value.)

Appropriations—Passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government until February.

(Anyone remember this teen-age-drama style bullshit from the Rethugs?)

Nuclear Arms Reduction—Ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.

Gay Rights—Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell allowing people to be open about their sexuality in the military.

(Another fine example of something a liberal might want to support. Just sayin'.)

Military Funding—Approval of the $725 billion Defense Authorization bill.

Food Safety—Approval of a bill to give the FDA more authority over the nation's food supply.

Child Nutrition—Passage of bill to expand the school lunch program and set new standards to improve nutrition of school meals.

Confirmation of 19 Judicial Nominees (and deferral of four others).

9/11 Health—Passage of the $4.3 billion James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Bill to cover the costs of medical care for workers and others who became ill after cleaning up ground zero.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2010/dec/22/open-thread-what-passed-lame-duck-session/

I think we can expect much when from Obama's lame duck term.

Julie

[zipplewrath]

61. But more progressive?

The post to which I was responding suggested that Obama would somehow become more progressive in a second term. I'm not sure why anyone would suggest that. Look at your list. Extension of Bush Tax Cuts. Military Funding. Continuing resolutions. This list isn't any more "progressive" than the two years leading up to it, nor the year following. To whatever degree one considers his first term progressive, would seem to be an indicator of his second term. I don't see how anyone would suggest a leftward movement on the part of this president.

[JNelson6563]

68. lolz Ok.

Hooray for repealing DADT (of course I note you can't even concede that point but that's not how you roll, I understand) but Boo! Hiss!1! for funding the salaries of those we so desperately wanted to be let out of the military closet.

Short sightedness that rivals that of the 1%, bravo!

And the art of compromise, that's for losers!1!

If I believed in any gods I would thank them daily for places like DU that keep many so very busy there isn't time enough left to go and mess things up in real world politics. Er, what I meant to say is, keep posting on the interwebz!1! There's no better way of stickin' it to the man!

Julie--grateful for small favors

[zipplewrath]

75. Trouble following your writing style

So you think your list demonstrates some how that in a second term, Obama will move left?

[JNelson6563]

147. Typing to fast for you? Sorry.

I believe you asked why should you have any faith in a lame duck term for Obama. I posted a list of stuff that got done (with a big push from the WH) during the last time there was a lame duck time involved.

But of course you weren't really looking for any answers, were ya? Why would you? You obviously know everything there is to know. Or whatever.

Julie--who will apparently never learn you can't have honest discussion with a zealot

[zipplewrath]

152. It's not about having "faith"

I believe he will get alot done. The assertion in the OP was that he would move left in doing so. I don't see where that impression comes from. He's shown no desire to move left. He has seemed fairly content with what he has been accomplishing. I don't see where this impression that he will move left in a second term comes from.

[Logical]

84. I doubt it! N-t

[DCBob]

28. This comment "four more years of a seething dislike for liberals"...

shows you are either clueless or lying or simply blinded by your idiology. It hard to take anything you say seriously with absurd comments like that.

[GoCubsGo]

30. Exactly right.

Not to mention that liberals think for themselves. They also do their own homework before they make their choices. They don't need anyone else to tell them why they must do something.

[SidDithers]

29. No. Decide for yourself...nt

Sid

[UnrepentantLiberal]

105. .

[LynneSin]

31. Really?

** Shakes head **

[MrScorpio]

33. Voting for Barack Obama is a given… Simply look at the alternative

What you really need to be concerned with is Congress.

We need to make an effort to oust the Teabaggerati running it.

[Daniel537]

34. If at this stage you seriously have to ask

i imagine you probably voted for McKinney/Clemente in 08. Don't be foolish, friend. You know the reasons perfectly well.

[spanone]

35. t3

[HughBeaumont]

36. RMoney will unleash Trickle Down on Steroids.

Think Bewsh ran this country like a business? RMoney will run it like Bain and we'll all be GSI.

A 6-3 Conservaturd Supreme Court?

Women's rights from a Mormon?

LBGTI progress?

MIC getting a wish list?

Insurance goes back to pre-ACA days, which means 30 million (many of them children) will be fending for themselves. While ACA could have been better in many aspects, pre-ACA was a Dickensian nightmare.

[CBGLuthier]

37. He isn't Romney

What the hell more does anyone need?

Sure President Obama disappoints at times. But I seriously doubt a Romney in the office could make me any happier. I think those choosing a spite vote should instead take a razor to their own nose and not screw the rest of us.

[HappyMe]

38. Good grief!

"..seething dislike.." Really?

[ananda]

39. SCOTUS

nt

[Yavin4]

98. [phone]

Game. Set. Match. Thread over. Well done.

[lonestarnot]

150. [phone]

[mfcorey1]

40. Because you are intelligent enough to know that the alternative will create more devastating

effects on the lives of the underserved and all Americans, you will hold to your progressive principals of equality through government.

[pennylane100]

41. if you really cannot think of one good reason

I do not think you are trying to have a thoughtful discussion, just here to waste time.

[bigtree]

42. 'seething dislike'

[Robb]

43. No. "I chum and throw in a tasty chunk of bait."

"The only downside to Romney winning would be the Supreme Court picks...."

"I chum and throw in a tasty chunk of bait..."


(image courtesy http://westcoasttrollers.com )

[SidDithers]

46. +1...

Well done.

Sid

[mac56]

59. Bingo.

Good finds.

[Scurrilous]

85. I wish I had those links when I alerted earlier.

YOUR COMMENTS:

Disingenuous trollery.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

107. Ha ha

Jury results?

[Scurrilous]

118. Unanimous. n/t

[SidDithers]

112. Yup...nt

Sid

[DCBob]

132. Good catch Robb.

The unrepententliberal better start repenting.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

155. That was when I was furious with this president.

It's the main reason I quit reading GD. Have I been going through this thread attacking everyone who gave a reason to vote for Obama?

[Robb]

163. "This could be one of the lowest turnouts for a presidential election in history."

"This could be one of the lowest turnouts for a presidential election in history."

"Because Obama is a Republican. He doesn't care what unions have to say. Sitting out his reelection is the exact right policy."

"But then, I've given up on the Democratic Party. So carry on."

"...We're about to lose a 4th (counting Dukakis) election for the same damn reason."

[UnrepentantLiberal]

167. What do you think you're accomplishing?

Post all the links you want. I couldn't care less.

[SidDithers]

170. Isn't transparency wonderful?...nt

Sid

[UnrepentantLiberal]

181. Yes it is. Did you travel to the U.S. to help Obama in 08?

I didn't think so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/depts.washington.edu/www.travelblog.org/VC/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x33006

[UnrepentantLiberal]

176. Hey Robb, did you come across this when you were running your search on me?

Going to Ohio for Obama

[MineralMan]

45. It's not so much President Obama.

It's more the Congress. That's what we should be thinking about for the November election. Everyone should turn out and bring like-minded friends to the polls to vote for legislators who will take back both state and federal legislatures for Democrats. If, and only if, that happens, President Obama's re-election will be automatic and he'll have a Congress that will send him bills that provide the real hope and change.

If a landslide of Democrats turn out at the polls, everything will change. I hope that happens, and will be doing all I can to GOTV in my area. That's my answer to your question. It's not Obama who is the question, it's everyone else.

[JoePhilly]

47. Why don't you start the "Progressive Prez 2016" Group??

"seething dislike" ...

[Bruce Wayne]

48. I'm comfortable enough just voting against Romney.

Now you give me one good reason to not try this dive...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

123. Why would I talk you out of it?

I'd buy you another Corona for inspiration.

[Bruce Wayne]

130. C'mon, look at me, man

I'm a teetotaler

[soccer1]

49. Many , many reasons to vote for Obama

Just a few.....as mentioned, potential SC picks , foreign policy relations , healthcare, education initiatives, environmental initiatives.Obama showed much courage when he okayed the raid that got Bin Laden....if the mission had gone wrong, it would have seriously jeopardized his chances for re-election. The GM bailout....Obama saw the "larger picture", took the chance and all went well. The list goes on and on and on. I believe in Obama's vision on many fronts, and I believe his actions have showed he is a man of integrity.

[GeorgeGist]

50. You have ONE good reason ...

you gave it yourself.

Perhaps if you asked honest questions you would get better answers.

[showmethejedi]

51. well you could

Vote for obama Because his version of america more closely matches the progressive utopia that you dream about. Rmoney will be worse than bush because unlike W he is starting in a hole. By his logic its easier to pay someone to dig straight to china than to ask for a hand to pull us up.

[WI_DEM]

53. just vote any damn well you please.

If you can't see any differences between Obama and Romney or what Obama has done and accomplished as compared to Bush then you are dumb.

[Javaman]

54. If the supreme court pick isn't enough for you

then you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Xyzse]

55. Mitt Romney as President

That is enough of a reason for me.
At the beginning of the primaries I thought it might be ok. This whole exercise in stupidity called the GOP primaries have shown too much that I can't do what I initially planned to do.

(Which was to write in a candidate)

[Arkana]

57. Mitt Romney.

[Cleita]

60. Supreme Court by all means.

This is THE reason.

[varelse]

62. The Supreme Court is reason enough (nt)

[FSogol]

63. Robert Bork

Bork has been named Romney's top judicial adviser. Bork will make all of Romney's Supreme Court selections as well as selections for the Federal courts. A judiciary remade in Bork's image would be a disaster for this nation. Read up on Bork. If you had an understanding of his beliefs, you'd never show up on DU asking why you should support the Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Judging by the replies "Not as bad" seems to be the campaign slogan here.

Which is a piss poor reason to vote for someone.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

74. Eat your canned spinach and like it 2012!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. The argument is that canned spinach is "Not as bad" as canned asparagus.

An opinion I share. But, I have yet to be convinced to eat either.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. The cycle continues. We have two teams, both owned by the same corporation,

that put this pathetic circus show every couple of years to ensure we never take any steps toward taking our power back.

But for the time being, the SCOTUS appointments will serve.

[Xyzse]

127. I agree but...

This time last year, I may have agreed, but seriously from the showing of how divorced from reality the current crop of GOP candidates are, as well as their promoting of the Ryan Budget... I just can't.

The way I see it, voting for a 3rd party candidate at the moment is a vote for Mitt. I am not willing to risk that at this time.

[markpkessinger]

140. On the contrary...

... Voting for the best of the available (realistic) choices is a fine reason to vote for anyone.

Look, I have had more than my share of complaints about this President. I think he has done some good things and has tried without success to do some other good things. That said, I think he has been a disaster in terms of civil liberties, his arrogation of increased executive power and his expansion of the security state. Nevertheless, he's far and away better than any of the GOP alternatives, and the Greens don't have a realistic shot (I never even heard the name Jill Stein until last week).

And for anyone who would even consider not voting in this election, as far as I am concerned those folks fully deserve whatever happens, because even not voting is, in fact, making a choice that will have a potential impact on the election.

To call this a "piss poor reason" to vote for someone is, in my view, naive and foolish.

[Poll_Blind]

65. It'll be four more years of hippie punching. But the possibility of supreme court...

...nominees is a big one.

PB

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. Under the best circumstances

President Obama, particularly with a more moderate/progressive Congress, will be able and willing to push some decent moderate/left-of-center policies and, most importantly, SIGN THEM INTO LAW!

Under the worst circumstances, he will be able to block reactionary and regressive Republican Tea Party legislation from becoming law. He will, as others have pointed out, will be able to nominate SCOTUS replacements if any die/retire over the next 4 years, maybe not solidly ideologically liberals but some solid moderate/left-of-center justices whom will serve as counterweights against the more reactionary members of the court (i.e. Scalia, Thomas, et. al). President Obama will also still have significant control of the Federal Government and its regulatory agencies.

Until we can elect a much more solidly progressive Congress and/or the Republicans sober up and start acting like sane and rational beings again and refuse to stop obsessively pandering to the Pat Robertson/Fox News/hate radio crowds, the prospects for FDR/LBJ advancement of progressive policies seems somewhat limited at the Federal level, unfortunately, but handing election after election to the Republicans, particularly since they've become so increasingly radicalized, is inestimably worse by any measure IMHO.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. Well done!!!

[xiamiam]

69. i cant..drones,surveillance, wars, no accountability for war crimes or wall street

i do like his smile and his family..but he doesn't reprepresent me or the millions of us who hoped for change. I believed with all my heart during the last campaign..not now

[xiamiam]

73. sad commentary that the main reason to vote for him is not voting for romney as evidenced here

and this on a democratic discussion board..its really sad at this point in time and you all know it

[sofa king]

78. You'll put at least $250 in your own pocket for it.

Reelect President Obama, keep the Senate, and flip the House, and the one thing that is going to happen for sure is the tax cut for the wealthiest will permanently expire.

The revenue generated from that expiration will allow an all-Democratic Congress to pass a tax cut extension for everyone else, and still bring in billions in new tax revenue which will allow economic recovery efforts to finally begin after four years of Republican obstruction.

That should result in a net gain of at least $250 a year for most non-wealthy Americans (except of course for people like me, the impoverished, who don't count for anything in politics).

[ProSense]

79. Here are a

few:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002546093

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002548774

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108

Still, if anyone here is asking people to justify why they should vote for Obama, I doubt those are sufficient. And guess what, the question doesn't make you more progressive than Obama, it simply makes you appear incapable of reasoning.

I mean, make up your own damn mind.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

120. I wanna meet this "Obama Wall Street Puppet" that so-called liberals speak of.

I mean, if it is really true that Obama has a "seething dislike" of liberals, then R-Money shouldn't have a chance at winning anything, right? I mean, Wall Street has been deliberately sitting on cash; the banks won't lend and they have openly admitted that Mitt Romney is their guy. So where is this so-called "Wall Street Puppet" that is Obama?

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. You live in the USA, which has failed to elect presidents significantly to the left of Obama

for a long time. I can tell you're yearning to live somewhere more to the left, or back in the 1930s, but you don't. So help elect the man who can actually get elected.

You say elsewhere you live in New Jersey; obviously you have a big problem with a Republican governor. Fix that first, before moaning about how the president is too centrist for you. New Jersey elected a right wing arsehole.

[DCBob]

92. +1

I dont know where these people think we are going get the votes to elect this imaginary perfect liberal candidate.

[SidDithers]

81. Gallup: Obama approval rating among Liberal Democrats, week of Apr 9-15, is 89%...

Obama approval rating among Liberals is 78% for the same period.

"seething dislike"



Sid

[SmellyFeet]

151. Sorry, you can't call yourself a 'liberal' and be AGAINST gay marriage.

Or be pro-war, and escalating an unnecessary failed war is being pro-war.

Or be pro-war on drugs (including marijuana).

Or be pro-bank bailouts.

Or be pro-drone strikes.

Or by creating a health INSURANCE reform bill by excluding any ideas from liberals.

etc...

[jeff47]

90. Why did you bother making this post? You answered your question in your first sentence. (nt)

[SpencerShay]

93. "seething dislike for liberals"

Fine. Don't vote. Stay home. I'm tired of whiners with an agenda always asking, "Why should I voted for Obama? He hates liberals!" You're just trying to stir-up shit, so that other democrats will stay home, too. You may be a "liberal," (or, an RNC operative) but you're NO progressive. A real progressive wouldn't purposely try to hand the election to reactionary conservatives. The whole world doesn't revolve around the hurt feelings of fake "liberals," (and, RNC operatives) like you.

[SidDithers]

135. Well said...nt

Sid

[Arkansas Granny]

95. OK. Here goes:

[Atman]

96. If you really need to ask a bunch of strangers, do you really care?

After 3 1/2 years, you don't have any idea why Obama is a better choice than anyone else in the race, even if he has his shortcomings? Seriously? You'd really vote for Rmoney? Really? Give me one reason why you think he'd be good for America, then I can probably re-pay you 10/1 why Obama is already a better choice.

[KamaAina]

97. "Seething dislike for liberals"?

You must be thinking of Rahmbo calling us the R-word.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

108. Yeah...

that and Obama's contempt for Elizabeth Warren.

[ProSense]

114. Yeah,

"Yeah...that and Obama's contempt for Elizabeth Warren."

...that's more fiction.

[DCBob]

133. and he eats dogs too!!

might as well throw that in there.. you have thrown everything else.

[LibertyLover]

99. 3 words, just 3 little words -

President Mitt Romney. Enough said.

[Drew Richards]

121. One good reason? OBAMA GIRL!

Seriously, 4 more years of Republican control and this country will have no full time jobs or social safety net.

We need to take not just the White House,

But the House, the Senate, the Governors, the Town Councils...we need a break from this ass backwards Ayn Rand philosophy of sociopathy and psychopathy are good things...and a return to love thy neighbor as thyself.

[Autumn]

122. One reason and the only reason is that

The alternative is unbearable. Mitt One scary mother. On a bad day, Obama beats the fuck out of having a republican on 10 good days.

[coalition_unwilling]

126. Fear of the suffering a 25% U3 unemployment rate under President Romney will produce - n/t

[Creideiki]

137. The Supreme Court is probably all there is

but it's a great reason to vote against Romney (and therefore, for Obama--especially if you're in a swing state).

[arely staircase]

138. he is a good president

he ended the illegal war in iraq and is ending the other (legal) one in afghanistan (after killing the man who murdered 3000 americans.) he ended don't ask don't tell, and passed a not perfect but good health care law that will save countless lives.

pretty good work imho.

[Zax2me]

139. Hope.

And Change.

[bluestate10]

141. I will give you one.

This moderate has carried water and contributed to liberal democrats because they were democrats and were far batter than the alternatives. If progressives sit on their hands, I won't suffer. I also won't come to progressives aid when they are railing about the fucking mess that their inaction and all of nothing mindset caused. I got eight years of Bush because progressives in Florida and New Hamshire drank the Nader coolaide. For years, I saw one of those progressives protesting daily, rain or shine against the fucking rightwing mess that Bush II was creating. The time for that person to protest was long gone, that fucking time was on election day 2000 when he pulled the lever for Bush II by voting for Nader. I waited to get rid of Bush and voted for the democrat in 2000 and 2004. When I read some of the Obama will lose or I won't vote for Obama posts here on DU, I become more comfortable with being Michael to the progressive's Fredo. Turn your back on me when I need you to stay loyal to causes that I value, I am done with you. Nothing that you value will be important to me, I will sit on my comfortable ass while you protest in the streets having rightwing, sweaty cops beat the shit out of you as President Romney creates even more of a hell for you.

[Rex]

145. We will get to see what he learned in his first 4 years.

IMO.

[donheld]

146. Michelle

It's the best I can do

[DevonRex]

153. All I can tell you is to work REALLY hard to give him a majority in the House

and Senate. And, if you can, pray like hell for some sense to penetrate that thick skull of Harry Reid's. Obama will be more progressive if he has some progressives to work with. So far, that hasn't happened. Let's face it, the House is always worried about reelection and there are so many blue dogs it just ain't funny anymore. Considering where they come from it's understandable. They walk a very thin line. It's Reid's leadership in the Senate that has always pissed me off the most. No excuse for his decisions.

Obama is a lame duck this time around. He doesn't have to worry about anything but getting his agenda through. Reid is a long way from having to go through another election. So maybe he'll lighten up. Maybe we can make him lighten up. So let's try that. Let's come down really hard on him and see what happens. Make him stop giving assignments to blue dogs who totally water down legislation to nothing meaningful like Max B. did with HCR. If we can do that, there is hope. Okay?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

157. Dave Reichert WA. 8th can be defeated.

He won in 2010 with 51% against Suzan DelBene.

Reichert has been said to be considering a run against Marie Cantwell for Senate
(not likely) or a run for governor. Here is the very short snapshot of his unimpressive
accomplishments.

A.A. degree, Corcordia Lutheran College, Portland
USAF Reserve, 1971-76
30 years of law enforcement experience, including 8 years as sheriff
Head of a task force solving one of the largest serial murder cases (Green River Killer) in US history
Author, “Chasing the Devil: My Twenty Year Quest to Capture the Green River Killer
Elected to US Congress, 2004
Selected 2004 “Sheriff of the Year”, National Sheriff Association
Twice awarded Medal of Valor, King County Sheriff’s Office

In the 8th District, Republican Rep. Dave Reichert ended the first quarter with $521,000 in the bank. A Republican challenger, Keith Swank, had $2,900 in cash on hand, while Democrat Karen Porterfield, a university instructor, had $2,200.

Filing deadline is May 16th.

I wish Kucinich had taken a look at the 8th when he was here considering Jay Inslee's open seat.

[DevonRex]

159. Great news. I really hope somebody steps up to the plate.

And I wish like hell somebody could beat my congressman. Never happen. Red district in a purple state. *sigh*

Let me know if somebody files. I'll kick a donation that way if so. I'll work for the Dem who's challenging here, just like I always do, but hell, if the last one couldn't do it (retired Marine Corps fighter pilot, drop dead gorgeous in that Marine Corps way, beautiful family, smart as hell) then who can?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

172. Very generous of you...

Dave Reichert (R)* - (Campaign Site)
Keith Swank (R) - Retired Police Officer & Army Veteran
Ernest Huber (R) - Retired Navy Officer, Law School Graduate, Ex-Issaquah Regional GOP Chair & '10 Candidate
John Kennedy (D) - Financial Planner
Karen Porterfield (D) - University Official


John Kennedy makes his living selling reverse mortgages to seniors, this is a problem for me.
Karen Porterfield sounds like a good candidate. Reichert has $600,000 in campaign funds, Karen
has $2200. This district is the home of Microsoft, Costco and several other tech firms. While
socially liberal, alot of millionaires from the big firms funding Reichert. The Nat'l party never
gives any attention to our district even though Reichert won by 7000 votes in 2008 and a mere
3 pts. in 2010...

I'll send you a follow-up when her website is up and running.

[DevonRex]

177. Happy to help a district in play.

Like I said, I know mine isn't. I do what I can here but it always ends the same. So I normally pick a district or 2 around the country that I can actually see some positive results in. Helps to turn my frown upside down on election night as far as the House goes anyway.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

186. :-) I emailed her today and offered to campaign and fundraise. n/t

[EmeraldCityGrl]

154. I keep remembering how emphatically he stated

he was willing to be a one term president if it meant he could get a healthcare bill passed.
I've considered every option and have finally decided the chance he may take a left turn in
his 2nd term is my only hope. Sounds like a Democrat's fantasy but there are no other viable
options and sitting this one out will never be an option for me.

FDR would never be able to do today what he was capable of doing then. The global
economy was nonexistent, the1% were nonexistent and the robber barrens of
that time were being hurt economically along with the rest of the country. although not
to the same degree, a strong middle class enabled the success of the their portfolios and
business interests.

[edbermac]

156. I'll give you two: President Mitt Romney and First Lady Ann Romney

[UnrepentantLiberal]

160. Those ARE two good reasons.

[ErikJ]

158. Got 401K? GDP tanked 12% under Bush, it ROSE 12% under Obama!

Bush GDP went from 3% to -9% (YES-that's MINUS NINE PERCENT!)
Obama GDP went from -9% to +3% up 12%.

[B Calm]

161. Stay home or vote for Romney, is

that your message here?

[Lil Missy]

164. If you can't think of one then you'll not be satisfied with any reason. Vote for Romney instead. n/t

[treestar]

165. Why should we have to?

You decide for yourself.

[guitar man]

171. Ok

[unkachuck]

175. "Give me one good reason to vote for Obama this November"

....LoZoccolo wants you to?

[standingtall]

178. To stop the teabaggers from ruining the country.

Let me get this straight. Your not satisfied with Obama so you would rather not vote for him, and help a repub take the White House where they would proceed to pass thousands of pieces of legislation you will absolutely hate. Sense progressives thought the way you are thinking now in 2010 we've been subjected to 2 years of tea party hell. Enough is enough!

[grantcart]

179. lol "seething dislike for liberals"

time to get the ole ignore button out.


Its time to wake up. History is passing you by.

There have been five presidents that have significantly increased the range and scope of Federal Power; Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ and Obama.

Obama has added federal jurisdiction into the health market and the financial and consumer markets. It doesn't matter that the profile is limited, it always has been that way. From the 14th ammendment, federal takeover of land, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act all started as rather limited humble steps, just like the Affordable Health Act and the Consumer Protection Agency. As they prove their value they will grow and cast a huge profile.

Oh and by the way during those other expansions? A small group of bitter nay sayers tried to paint the big steps small.

Oh and by the way (2) Universal Health Care in Canada (and in most countries except England that swallowed it whole as an effort to repair everyone after a devestating war) started as a universal hospital policy in one province and as it proved its value grew gradually.

You have packed as much self absorbed self pity into three lines that I think is humanely possible.

See ya!

[craigmatic]

180. He's run a pretty scandal free administration and is at least competent for the job.

He's done alot for gays. He's been pretty good on equal pay for equal work. He ended the Iraq war. He's going to get rid of the bush tax cuts and end the Afgan war.

[Cali_Democrat]

182. He's not Mitt Romney

That's good enough for me.

As far as what he will do in a 2nd term, I would expect his second term to look much like his first term. Very much Bill Clintonesque.

[roody]

183. He and his wife have more social grace than

whoever would replace him.

[emulatorloo]

184. Wow! Awesome Vanity Thread, UL!

[Amonester]

185. How about First Lady Michelle instead of...

(Marie-)Ann(toinette) Rmoney, huh?