Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Voting 2012

Ya feel like a mean, racist bum going against Barack Obama. The 2008 election drilled that into our collective head. (Full disclosure: I voted for McCain in 2008, the first time I'd ever voted Republican since I was first able to vote in 1984. Why Republican this year? One, I was pissed off about Hillary and how she got completely sideswiped. Two, McCain, though he ran a crappy campaign in 2008, I still remembered from 2000, when he challenged Bush's bullshit in the Republican primaries. I also liked McCain's Senate record of attempting sensible reforms: campaign and immigration, for instance. Obama, on the other hand, hadn't done a thing. He spoke well and was also historically black, but he was also all surface and no depth.)

For 2012: Obama remains a good speaker and a pleasant, thoughtful man. But he's as incompetent as George W. Bush was. No, he's worse:

Unemployment rate: (US Labor Dept.) October 2008 = 6.6%. October 2011 = 9.0%
National debt: (CBS News) 2008 = $10 trillion. 2011 = $14 trillion.
Wall Street bonuses: (Wall Street Journal, 2010) "Pay and benefits at the top 25 publicly traded banks and security firms on Wall Street hit a record of $135.5 billion" in 2010.

Also, Obama is reported (from the liberal "Washington Post") to have received more Wall Street contributions than any other Presidential candidates from both 2008 and 2012: "According to The Post’s latest revelation, bank employees, hedge fund magnates and others in the finance sector have contributed more to Obama and the Democrats than any of the campaigns of the GOP candidates. Largely to thank, says The Post, is a number of Democratic financiers who aided Obama in his 2008 bid to reclaim the White House from the Republicans that still give money to Obama and the DNC today.

Between both his own campaign and DNC contributions, the president has been responsible for raking in around $15.6 million in contributions from the financial and banking sector. By comparison, Texas Governor Rick Perry, still considered to be in the top-tier of GOP candidates, has pulled in only $2 million from the same pool."

Given the above, I'm puzzled about the "Wall Street Occupiers" occupying Wall Street and other city centers. Saying nothing about President Barack Obama's own extremely strong Wall Street connections. Not marching on Washington to protest both the President and the Congress. Calling Obama himself on his crap would be much less popular, huh?

On a personal note: My mother is a big Obama supporter. And I've been railing against him for the past few years based on his poor performance (and on my own unemployment for the first time in 30 years). But I just recently calmed down a bit and said to her, "I hope I'm fully employed by next year's election, because I want to make my decision rationally instead of just being pissed off because I'm unemployed."

But being long-term unemployed is, indeed, part of a "rational" decision. As are considering the National Debt and looking at the Wall Street bonuses being handed out during Obama's term, despite the earlier crash.

And Obama's foreign policy? The US "rationale" for invading Iraq was completely invented by Bush. I hated that, and I liked Obama while he was campaigning for saying the Iraq invasion was wrong. But... How has Obama's foreign policy been ANY different from Bush's? With Bush... a snake is a snake. The Snake pretty much said what he planned to do from the beginning. Disagree with it as you will, the Snake stated his intentions. Obama, on the other hand, acted reasonable while campaigning, then spent billions of US money targeting Libya, for instance. (What the fuck? Khaddafy hadn't been a threat to the US since Reagan put him out of commission in the '80s.)

In short, Obama, by his own actions, is a Wall Street hack and pseudo-Republican on foreign issues. Yet... he poses so much better than that...

Even if I have a nice job in the fall of 2012, I don't see how I can vote for him.

No comments: