Why I Support Barack Obama for President

I am ready for the election to be over and I'm sure most of you are ready for me to stop Facebooking and tweeting about politics. But before I return to more normal Dave, it's time for me to jot down a few things why I supported Barack Obama in 2008 and why I support his re-election, this Tuesday, November 6th, 2012.

First, my thoughts on the challenger. I've experienced Mitt Romney as a capable moderate Governor of Massachusetts. I believe that he is an exceedingly smart and decent man (though I hope those 47% comments were merely the typical Romney pander - and if not, that decency does take a hit). Unfortunately, Governor Romney decided, as he did in 2008, that he had to run to the far right disowning his moderate mantle that he worked so hard to build as Governor of Massachusetts. Here are some things that Governor Romney did that candidate Romney would be outraged by:

• Initiated a "cap and trade" carbon tax proposal between other New England states. McCain/Palin called these initiatives "cap and tax."
• Passed a healthcare reform bill largely based on conservative think tank policies advocating for the individual mandate combined with tax subsidies for low-income families (sound familiar?) called Romneycare.
• Required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception (a.k.a. the "morning after pill") as part of their official "rape kits" for sexual assault victims in emergency room care. See here.

If candidate Romney had run as Governor Romney of Massachusetts, then he might have gotten a closer look from me (deep down I was hoping for an Obama/Huntsman race). However, these past few weeks we've seen the Mitt we've always known, someone who has a good sense of what to do, but will say absolutely anything to get to power. And it's not fair to the Republican primary voter, nor is it fair to the general election voter to have literally no stance on key issues. For example on abortion, he told primary Republican voters that he'd be "delighted to sign" a bill that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended ALL abortion access, not even for the typical exemptions of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Then he told general election audiences that of course, in a Romney administration he would keep these exemptions. He can't have it both ways.

I still have this basic feeling: Mitt Romney is not a bad guy and could be a good president. However, the Republican Party in its current state is not fit to govern (see Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock) and to vote for Romney would be to reward the awful political gamesmanship of the Congressional Republicans.

I was lucky to see candidate Barack Obama up close as a State Senator from Chicago and federal Senator from Illinois. The young state senator got my attention because he came across as extremely smart, willing to work across the aisle on real policy issues (police interrogation rules at the state level eventually working with Republican Dick Lugar on nuclear proliferation on the federal/national level), and was and is a genuinely decent man of worthy character. And most of all, President Obama has done, in spite of an historically obstructionist Republican Congress, most of what he said he'd do. Here are some of the policies I hoped might be accomplished when I voted for then Senator Obama.

• A responsible end to the War in Iraq (completed)
• A responsible exit strategy for Afghanistan (initiated)
• A reasonable healthcare reform bill (passed) AND based on Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts
• Re-funding stem-cell research at the National Institute of Health (done)
• An end to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (surprisingly passed) and side-thanks to Sen. Scott Brown for his courageous vote considering the circumstances
• Said he'd give the order to take Osama bin Laden out - regardless of the diplomatic implications. And if you think it's such an easy call, both opponents Hillary Clinton and John McCain criticized this posture in the 2008 primaries. Here it is: (amazingly DONE)

Like Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the most successful conservative, yes you heard me, CONSERVATIVE presidents we've ever had. Someone who passed a very politically risky stimulus in order to avert a great depression and a very moderate healthcare bill modeled after the very successful Romneycare in Massachusetts. He's gotten America out of the war in Iraq responsibly, decimated the leadership of Al Qaeda (to the chagrin of very left wing and independent folks - who have legitimate criticisms of presidential powers including drone strikes and assassination "kill" lists). With re-election I believe he will have the political capital to tackle our deficit and debt situation in a balanced responsible way with some cuts to entitlements so long as responsible Republicans agree to revenue increases as well. I also believe he will follow through on his promise to tackle real immigration reform in his next term.

My favorite Obama quote is, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." For all of the messiah-complex writings on the man, the Presidency, as we've witnessed the last two years, is not extremely powerful. It's up to us to advocate for the sensible policies that will move our country in the right direction. That's why I'll be voting for President Obama, this Tuesday, November 6th.

Why Big Bird Matters

During last Wednesday's terrible debate for the President, one line from Republican nominee Mitt Romney stuck out to voters of all political stripes, when he said the following,

"I'm going to cut the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you too [Jim]. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

Today, the President's campaign is out with a new ad featuring Big Bird admonishing Mitt Romney for promising to crack down on Sesame Street instead of the bankers on Wall Street and is getting some backlash describing the Obama campaign as unserious with their defense.

Here's why the Big Bird argument matters. In a nutshell, this example shows that Republicans (in power at least) don't give two shits about the deficit or debt and the only reason they care about it now is because they can use it to cut down on liberal programs that they hate regardless of the economic climate; things like PBS, food stamps and foreign aid. These programs account for less than one percent of the budget, but these are the programs that are first on the list to go in a Republican controlled White House or chamber of Congress.

For all their talk of honesty, Republicans are looking ripe to continue their spend and cut ways. For all of Paul Ryan's promise, there has been minimal mention of his plan to voucherize Medicare, and while I disagree with this policy it definitely saves the government money and is honest about what the #1 driver of the deficit is. And as Mitt Romney's tax plan currently illustrates, independent studies have shown that to give all tax payers an across-the-board 20% rate cut, plus a 10% reduction in the corporate tax rate, PLUS $2 trillion extra dollars in military spending, that deep hole cannot be bridged by "closing loopholes" yet to be named.

In all honesty, in the immediate term, I think the unemployment rate is way more important to fix than the deficit but we definitely need a long-term solution and cutting PBS and foreign aid gets us nowhere close. But don't let Republicans tell you they care about deficits and debt, because they don't.

The real argument Obama should be making...

Forget Bain Capital and forget the killing of Osama bin Laden, here's the argument Obama should be making this fall. The main argument is not that George W. Bush left a mess, it's that Congressional Republicans failed to help clean any of it up.

President Bush left three major shit burgers for the Obama administration: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, the fiscal meltdown caused by teachers, firefighters and policemen the complete lack of regulation of Wall Street and the mortgage derivatives market. But Bush just left those burgers there. In a time of national crisis, Obama shouldn't have had to eat those shit burgers all by himself, but he got no help from Republicans.

Congressional Republicans were fine conceding to "country first" proposals during those last sad months of the Bush administration and much to everyone's surprise, found their anti-keynesian "fiscal responsibility" just in time for the Obama administration. Who could have predicted that? Not only were they merely content with standing by while Obama and congressional Democrats tried to clean up the economic mess, they purposefully advocated counterproductive measures like reducing unemployment insurance and, in unprecedented fashion, refused to raise the debt limit which resulted in a lowering of our credit rating. An easy self-inflicted wound. Until President Obama, every debt limit ceiling vote had been a non-partisan matter of fact for Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

At a time when the problems we faced needed to be solved with the cooperation of both parties, the Republican party chose politics over country and we have the simple proof to show it. In the fall of 2008, George W. Bush finally saw the Keynesian light and chose the economy over his "conservative" principles and proposed a needed stimulus bill for the banking sector in the amount of $700 Billion, commonly known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. After TARP failed to pass in the House due to Republican resistance, the market had its biggest one day drop in it's history since the great depression of more than 700 points. I guess the free markets love socialism (Remember everyone, government handouts are fine so long as they go to rich, white people). After having the shit scared out of them by reality, eventually 108 House Republicans voted for Bush's bank bailout, yet only three congressional Republicans voted to support Obama's stimulus bill which went to the American taxpayer instead of banks, which by the way, were composed of 1/3 of tax cuts!

Here's then Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) speaking on the floor, reflecting his pure anti-Keynesian, anti-spending philosophy. Wait a minute???



And here he is in the summer of 2009, referencing the Obama stimulus bill or the "Recovery Act" for the amount of $787 Billion dollars. As you can see he's going to hold the same "do what's in the best interests of the country, not your party" position as he held a mere months before and vote yes, right???



Mitt Romney is not the problem. Mitt Romney is a nice, smart man who was born to a wealthy family and decided he wanted to continue that way of life, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the Republican Party has gone absolutely bonkers and their "no government" ideology has blinded them to pragmatic solutions to the problems we face. I think if we had a President Romney, due to his elite brain trained at Harvard, he would advocate for continued economic stimulus, also known as GOVERNMENT SPENDING, until we were fully out of this weak economy. The real question is, would his crazy party let him?

Awwww Yeah! Biden in DA HOUSE!

Watch out everyone. VP JB is comin' to your town and he's gonna kick some butt! Nothing humanizes the ticket like the Bidenator! Key quote, "you can tell I'm new."


For those of you who don't know State Senator Chuck Graham is disabled.

On Obama's State of the Union

First of all, let me state that I am tired and about to go to bed, because sleep is awesome.

Oh tay, here we go. The Presidential State Of The Union is always a balance between lofty vision and concrete policy proposals. You always want an equal mix of the two. You want to feel moved, but you also need a "where's the beef?" aspect to the grand themes of the speech.

Overall, I thought Obama did a good job - not great, but good. For me, it was a tad heavy on the "where's the beef" aspects of smaller policy prescriptions and a little light on general vision of why his leadership is right for this moment. He articulately laid out the facts that he has issued less regulations than Bush, domestic oil production is at the highest levels in 8 years (even with the BP oil spill), more WTO complaints against China than Bush, and his administration is doing it's best to get rid of dumb, red-tape regulations - culminating in the terrible "spilled milk" joke (which was oddly effective due to its extreme terribleness), which helped illustrate that he is actually, lo and behold a moderate Democrat. And he did a nice job at the beginning and end of the speech by simply stating that if Congress just had a smidge of the national purpose of our military we could get some great things accomplished. Although awkwardly phrased, the story of the Bin Laden mission with Republican Defense Secretary Bob Gates and former rival Hillary Clinton in the situation room was a nice window into the fact that only the mission mattered and party ideology dissolved and that in the small window of executive authority Obama has led as promised.

Interesting and good ideas - Ernie translated

- If you want to send jobs overseas, that's fine, but you shouldn't get a freakin' tax break - that money can be "spent" giving a tax credit to corporations that have expressed interest moving production back to the U.S. I find nothing wrong with a little bit of supporting domestic industry.

- Natural gas exploration is totally OK - so long as you prove it's environmentally safe for U.S. citizens. Also linked to a great point that federal research dollars eventually led to these new ways of accessing shale oil and relating to green/clean energy investment now even if it doesn't pay off IMMEDIATELY.

- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Fraud Task Force - A major part of the collapse of 2008 wasn't just because there were some dumb homebuyers out there. Many financial institutions sold fraudulent mortgages to weak buyers because a higher division of the bank was investing/betting on the failure of said mortgages! It's about time for an honest assessment of the difference between honest failed lending and a bad economy versus banks that proactively gave mortgages for the sheer purpose of monetizing them.

Neutral / Bad ideas

- Forcing everyone to finish high school - Totally agree with the principle, but no meaningful way of enforcement.
- China trade task force - We already have trade lawyers who do this work, this is just a more visible way of seeming like we're tougher on China (not likely to have much impact).

Missed opportunities

- Could have taken a larger stab at comprehensive tax reform. As you can see in the good ideas section, Obama proposed some small credits for corporations bringing jobs back to the U.S., but no mention of general tax reform of lowering rates in exchange for removing loopholes and deductions.

U.S. Catholic bishops care more about sex than abortion

It's been nice to see as President Obama continued his streak of standing up for the correct policies by affirming that all employers, regardless of their religious affiliation, would have to provide health insurance that covers birth control at no cost to the employee. The Obama administration did allow one key exemption; which would allow churches themselves to not comply with the law, but church related institutions such as universities and hospitals must comply by next August 2013. Notably Catholic bishops were outraged as they vowed to fight the "HHS Edict," Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York stating, "the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

Devout Catholics have every right to be upset with this dogmatically, as any sex that is not for the sole purpose of procreation is a big NO-NO. People always think that the general requirement for sex is that you need one man and one woman to get married for intercourse to be acceptable. Nope, not if that married couple is using a condom, is on "the pill", the "ring", IUD, you name it, it's NOT OK with the Catholic Church. And from a purely religious standpoint that's cool.

But on a policy level, all this proves is that the Catholic Church cares way more about teens having sex than it does about preventing teens from getting pregnant and then having abortions. This new policy is likely to stop hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies from occurring and that means millions fewer abortions over time. You would think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops would be applauding the new regulation, but no, the Catholic Church has shown its cards and it is way more interested in being angry about teen sex than it is about reducing abortion in America.

With friends like these...

Who needs enemies? This report out of Foreign Policy magazine really puts to light the recent "terrorist attack" assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan. We need to make a point here; just because someone works for a government doesn't mean they agree with their leadership's policies. I'm sure there were lots of people who worked for Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il not because they agreed with their policies, but because if they didn't work on behalf of their country, their entire family might be subject to work in camps or even death. If I lived in a country like that, you bet your balls I'm crying my ass off when Kim Jong-Il dies. It just so happens that Ahmadi-Roshan's job was to work on nuclear physics. To kill someone for merely participating in a system that is not of their own control and is CIVILIAN in nature is completely wrong and counterproductive to Israel's security. It's like the religious nuts of the world WANT to have World War III.

God damnit Israel, I want to love you so bad, but you're always acting so crazy!