Yes I am biased. I will proudly go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama on that second Tuesday in November. It will be nice to have my candidate lined up for me, and to know that I agree with at least 70% of his ideas and stances. He really weathered a storm in 2008, when he had to answer all kinds of questions from where he was born to what his religion was. The GOP reached to the bottom of the barrel and came up empty on all fronts.
Like I said, I agree with my candidate's real, unwaivering viewpoints on major issues, at least 70%+. Do you? You should know who you are voting for. You should never bubble in a name for a reason other than believing in the person and what they stand for and believe in personally. This being said, I am glad I am not a GOP voter this year. From all standpoints, they are royally screwed on the "I will vote for the person with the best values." front as well as the "I will vote for the person who has the best history of being Conservative." front.
Let's start with Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney used to be a Independent, but is now in denial and pretending to be a hard-line Conservative. He is much like a teenager from the suburbs dressing in chains and getting a nose ring. They know who they are, they know what they really believe, but feel the need to be something else, just because it will get them more attention and noticed. Here is a video that was created by the DNC that pretty much highlights how Mitt went from being an Independent thinker, to a far Right GOP operative:
Basically, after he decided to run for President, he knew that he would never become the GOP nominee if he remained on the path of his true stances on all issues; or at least what he said were his true beliefs so that he could win Governorship in a liberal state like Massachusetts. He completely abandoned his original views and actions. "Real Mitt"(or Massachusetts Mitt) believes TARP was good, Abortion should be allowed, the auto bailout was necessary, believed the stimulus packages under Bush and Obama were necessary and good ideas, was against Reagan, believed in solid health care for everyone, believed in man-made global warming, believed in taxes, and believed in banning assault weapons.
Now, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he believes the opposite of all of those viewpoints he used to have; or, rather laughably, that he never said or believed those things of which he is being questioned now. Didn't the GOP basically edge John Kerry in 2004 because they painted him, slightly successfully, as a flip-flopper?
You also have to take into account what he has been saying lately. He certainly has not been winning people over with his recent rhetoric, leaving behind crude one-liners that have been all too easy to attack him with. Here are some of the sentences, not even being taken out of context, that he has thrown out there: "I like being able to fire people." Also, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there." Is this the guy you want running the country? I thought Conservatives wanted to do away with all the poors' safety nets and get them to work? Most GOP think this about the poor, but Mitt just says it out loud to the delight of absolutely no one in the GOP.
Next, you have Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has old battle scars that many thought would have him eliminated from contention early. However, other candidates began to wilt under the spotlight. Bachmann, Perry and Cain bowed out. Huntsman as well. Then, the GOP operatives began souring on the idea of Mitt Romney as their candidate. This left them with few choices and many chose to throw support behind Newt Gingrich. Some big endorsements came from Sarah Palin, and laughably ironic: The American Family Association. Let's talk about these battle scars, because in the world of the GOP, and notably the Evangelical base, these should be a kill shot. Should.
They are well known. He cheated on his wives. He left his first wife while she was battling cancer. He left his second wife while she was battling multiple sclerosis, and may have even propositioned her to allow him to cheat on her in an open marriage deal. He once said of his first wife, she wasn't pretty enough for Washington. He was also reprimanded for ethics violations, becoming the only Speaker of the House ever reprimanded for such violations.(http://tinyurl.com/75rrec4) He resigned after a disappointing 1998 election year, becoming the only Speaker of the House to ever resign.(http://tinyurl.com/3cjgs3l) He was basically forced into this resignation by his own party, who saw him as a lousy leader and egotistical self-aggrandizer. So even his own party decided he is a terrible leader.
Then, there's what he just announced a few days ago that really takes it to a level beyond crazy. Newt Gingrich said that he will see to it that America builds a colony on the moon. No, seriously. Newt wants to build a colony on the moon. Like, real estate that people can live in. Very rich people of course; and it would be the 51st State.
Maybe he realizes that everything corporations have done to the Earth will make it a really bad place to live in the future? I don't know but the cost of building a colony on the moon would be astronomical. The idea was floated around the time Newt became Speaker, by Democrats that Washington DC become the 51st state. Newt bristled at the idea and stated that DC didn't have nearly enough people to constitute statehood. However, they would have many more people than this moon colony obviously. at a different event, he was asked about this idea again and doubled down. He is absolutely serious: he wants a colony on the moon, and he wants it built by yesterday.
There's some prime real estate over by the Sea Of Tranquility
If you are a GOP voter, these are your choices: A man who cheated on his wives and, for a lack of better wording, left them for dead; then was forced to resign for ethics violations and for being a lousy leader by his own political party, who wants to build a colony on the moon at the cost of billions of dollars and name it the 51st state. Or, you could vote for a man who used to be a left-leaning Independent who suddenly changed all his viewpoints because they were an unpopular platform to have while trying to become GOP nominee for the Presidential Election. Sounds like a raw deal either way.
Mitt won Florida convincingly. He needed to because he got defeated in South Carolina and was reeling and appeared wounded in the race. It looked bad for Romney after his Iowa victory was turned into a defeat by Santorum following the release of accurate vote tallies. This GOP race has changed dramatically and at some point most of the potential candidates have reached front-runner status. If you look at exit polling, it looks like women might have abandoned Newt in Florida. This was the first big state to hold their primary, and Mitt came out with their 50 delegates. This now puts Newt back in second place. He will have to regroup, and win voters in states who are not necessarily evangelical conservatives. I don't know if he can win those people over. Mitt basically gets their votes by default. Any day I expect Santorum and Paul to drop out, they are really barely on life support at this point.
If you are a GOP voter, I don't want you to vote for Obama. I don't. You should vote for the person that fits your mold, that meets your viewpoints head on and without waver. The person you vote for should essentially be the total package of what you want your life in America to be like and how it can be achieved.
I think this election will really put evangelical GOP voters in a bind. They cannot in good conscience vote for either guy, based on all the things that are near and dear to them. Newt is an adulterer; Mitt is a left-leaning flip-flopper whose religion shouldn't be an issue but may become one. I am glad I don't have to throw away my beliefs and values to vote this year. I actually feel sorry for some of my friends who I know are evangelical Conservative voters, as they will have to cast aside their moral viewpoints to cast a vote this year. In the words of Jerry Seinfeld..."Good luck with all, that..."
Images not created by me. All copyrights belong to original copyright holders. Used under Copyright law fair use, not for profit, as a teaching tool. All videos and footage belong to original copyright holders as well, including but not limited to NBC and the DNC.
Now, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he believes the opposite of all of those viewpoints he used to have; or, rather laughably, that he never said or believed those things of which he is being questioned now. Didn't the GOP basically edge John Kerry in 2004 because they painted him, slightly successfully, as a flip-flopper?
You also have to take into account what he has been saying lately. He certainly has not been winning people over with his recent rhetoric, leaving behind crude one-liners that have been all too easy to attack him with. Here are some of the sentences, not even being taken out of context, that he has thrown out there: "I like being able to fire people." Also, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there." Is this the guy you want running the country? I thought Conservatives wanted to do away with all the poors' safety nets and get them to work? Most GOP think this about the poor, but Mitt just says it out loud to the delight of absolutely no one in the GOP.
Next, you have Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has old battle scars that many thought would have him eliminated from contention early. However, other candidates began to wilt under the spotlight. Bachmann, Perry and Cain bowed out. Huntsman as well. Then, the GOP operatives began souring on the idea of Mitt Romney as their candidate. This left them with few choices and many chose to throw support behind Newt Gingrich. Some big endorsements came from Sarah Palin, and laughably ironic: The American Family Association. Let's talk about these battle scars, because in the world of the GOP, and notably the Evangelical base, these should be a kill shot. Should.
They are well known. He cheated on his wives. He left his first wife while she was battling cancer. He left his second wife while she was battling multiple sclerosis, and may have even propositioned her to allow him to cheat on her in an open marriage deal. He once said of his first wife, she wasn't pretty enough for Washington. He was also reprimanded for ethics violations, becoming the only Speaker of the House ever reprimanded for such violations.(http://tinyurl.com/75rrec4) He resigned after a disappointing 1998 election year, becoming the only Speaker of the House to ever resign.(http://tinyurl.com/3cjgs3l) He was basically forced into this resignation by his own party, who saw him as a lousy leader and egotistical self-aggrandizer. So even his own party decided he is a terrible leader.
Then, there's what he just announced a few days ago that really takes it to a level beyond crazy. Newt Gingrich said that he will see to it that America builds a colony on the moon. No, seriously. Newt wants to build a colony on the moon. Like, real estate that people can live in. Very rich people of course; and it would be the 51st State.
Maybe he realizes that everything corporations have done to the Earth will make it a really bad place to live in the future? I don't know but the cost of building a colony on the moon would be astronomical. The idea was floated around the time Newt became Speaker, by Democrats that Washington DC become the 51st state. Newt bristled at the idea and stated that DC didn't have nearly enough people to constitute statehood. However, they would have many more people than this moon colony obviously. at a different event, he was asked about this idea again and doubled down. He is absolutely serious: he wants a colony on the moon, and he wants it built by yesterday.
There's some prime real estate over by the Sea Of Tranquility
If you are a GOP voter, these are your choices: A man who cheated on his wives and, for a lack of better wording, left them for dead; then was forced to resign for ethics violations and for being a lousy leader by his own political party, who wants to build a colony on the moon at the cost of billions of dollars and name it the 51st state. Or, you could vote for a man who used to be a left-leaning Independent who suddenly changed all his viewpoints because they were an unpopular platform to have while trying to become GOP nominee for the Presidential Election. Sounds like a raw deal either way.
Mitt won Florida convincingly. He needed to because he got defeated in South Carolina and was reeling and appeared wounded in the race. It looked bad for Romney after his Iowa victory was turned into a defeat by Santorum following the release of accurate vote tallies. This GOP race has changed dramatically and at some point most of the potential candidates have reached front-runner status. If you look at exit polling, it looks like women might have abandoned Newt in Florida. This was the first big state to hold their primary, and Mitt came out with their 50 delegates. This now puts Newt back in second place. He will have to regroup, and win voters in states who are not necessarily evangelical conservatives. I don't know if he can win those people over. Mitt basically gets their votes by default. Any day I expect Santorum and Paul to drop out, they are really barely on life support at this point.
If you are a GOP voter, I don't want you to vote for Obama. I don't. You should vote for the person that fits your mold, that meets your viewpoints head on and without waver. The person you vote for should essentially be the total package of what you want your life in America to be like and how it can be achieved.
I think this election will really put evangelical GOP voters in a bind. They cannot in good conscience vote for either guy, based on all the things that are near and dear to them. Newt is an adulterer; Mitt is a left-leaning flip-flopper whose religion shouldn't be an issue but may become one. I am glad I don't have to throw away my beliefs and values to vote this year. I actually feel sorry for some of my friends who I know are evangelical Conservative voters, as they will have to cast aside their moral viewpoints to cast a vote this year. In the words of Jerry Seinfeld..."Good luck with all, that..."
Images not created by me. All copyrights belong to original copyright holders. Used under Copyright law fair use, not for profit, as a teaching tool. All videos and footage belong to original copyright holders as well, including but not limited to NBC and the DNC.
No comments:
Post a Comment