Why I am not Voting Obama

You quoted me saying:

“In any case, if you are suggesting that no American administration has ever made unintended errors or honest mistakes while trying to do good.”


Then you wrote: Go ahead, Frank. I'd love to hear some.



Now when I asked about it, you are saying:



This is getting past the point of being “ludicrously extravagant”, JTT. I think I will just leave it at: You tend to engage in hyperbole.

If you do not think you do…that is okay with me.

If I see you engaging in hyperbole in the future, I will call it to your attention and we can discuss it.

I asked you specifically to go ahead and provide some of these instances. Now, you are trying to tell me that you are chickening out, Frank?

For heaven's sakes, why? I'm all ears.

JTT, you quoted me saying: “If you want to think that no American administration has ever made unintended errors or honest mistakes while trying to do good, JTT, there is not much I can do to persuade you to reconsider…so live with it.”…and then wrote:



First of all, thanks for this. The one thing I am seldom accused of is “chickening out”…in fact I cannot actually bring another time to mind. So now that you have done so, I can cross it off my bucket list—and consider it an accomplishment of sorts.

But in answer, NO, I am not chickening out. There are many instances of American administrations making unintended errors or honest mistakes while trying to do good—plane crashes come immediately to mind; allowing humanitarian goods to fall into wrong hands another.

But I doubt you’d even acknowledge that any American administration ever tried to do good…so jumping through this particular hoop has no upside for me.




Ahhh, a problem Prince Charles of England has to deal with also. Live with it—I understand some women find it attractive.

To Frank, and all others who are inclined to indulge JTT in its favorite hobby horse:

This is a thread about the reasons to vote or not to vote for Obama. Be aware that JTT takes over threads to throttle its own one-issue agenda. That's what JTT does. JTT can't start threads of its own because half the board has it on ignore, so instead it takes over existing threads and turns them into discussions of what it wants to talk about, not what the thread's about. If you have any respect for Edgar, the originator of this thread, you'll start a new thread that addresses the issue with which JTT is monomaniacally obsessed and return this thread to its intended purposes.

Thank you for your understanding and anticipated cooperation

You wrote,

That's JTT in a nut shell, and he's the shell; empty.

It's easy to ignore JTT for those so inclined. At the same time, it's up to others if they wish to respond to him. I think Joe's analysis of JTT's habits here is largely correct. However, I don't think scolding those who choose to respond to him is a helpful remedy.

You misunderstand: I am not scolding those who choose to respond to JTT. As one of the few people here who don't have it on ignore, I've responded to JTT plenty of times. Rather, I'm requesting that people not assist JTT in derailing this thread.

But my intention here is not to make this thread all about me instead of being all about JTT, so this is my last post on the sub-topic.

Frank Apisa: But in answer, NO, I am not chickening out. There are many instances of American administrations making unintended errors or honest mistakes while trying to do good—plane crashes come immediately to mind; allowing humanitarian goods to fall into wrong hands another.

But I've decided to chicken out and not describe these figments of my imagination.



It would illustrate that you didn't chicken out, Frank.

Nice try.

Joe [just a few posts ago]: so this is my last post on the sub-topic.

I am not interested in illustrating to you that I did not chicken out. I know I did not...and, respectfully as possible, am not particularly bothered if you think I did.

But Joe's suggestion to me makes sense.

If you have something to say about why you are not voting for Barack Obama (the topic of this thread), I will consider it and respond if I think a response is appropriate.

I AM VOTING for Barack Obama in November. I think he has gotten as much done as anyone could get done in this toxic political environment...and I think he deserves a chance to get as much more done as is possible considering the obstructionism.

In any case, he certainly seems a better choice than any of the alternatives currently being offered.

Your right. Considering the current crop of republicans Obama is the best choice so I will once again hold my nose and vote for Obama. I will hold my nose not because he is too liberal but because he too conservative for a democrat.

For the most part I agree with this assessment.

But I think the biggest reason he hasn't been able to get ever more done is that he didn't have enough Washington-Insider experience as was necessary to navigate the waters. I think he will actually be more effective in his second term.

And IMO the way things look right now, it is HIGHLY likely that he will get a second term. Romney is the only one with even a slight chance of beating him, and I don't think he will.

I don't think it's about Washington insider experience. It's about the No Party that wanted Obama to fail at every turn. Based on this fact, he accomplished more than a newbie in the White House. He made some major accomplishments; improved economy, getting rid of bin Laden, saving GM, and improving our relationships with our allies.

I agree he's had challenges due to obstructionism, but I also do think that he's been less effective as a LEADER than I thought he might be from his campaign.

He's a great orator and he knew (or his campaign people knew... ) how to rev up the base he needed. But once he was in office he didn't maintain that same leadership. He lets too many of his accomplishments go unnoticed, and he doesn't seem to understand how to use the presidency as a marketing platform for himself to build up political capital. Which is a bit perplexing since he played his campaign like a fiddle.

At heart he's a pragmatist and I don't think he's particularly interested in being grandiose. But in my view, the primary role of President is one of Leadership and that means standing tall and declaring where you're going to go and then building a consensus to get there.

I will offer Health Care as an example. Even though he was able to push it through while the Dems controlled congress he failed to step in and present a truly effective Health Care plan which the country needed. Instead he allowed the stupid congress to cobble together a sloppy lobbyist driven flawed Health Plan. He had a plan of his own already drafted and it was much better than what eventually got passed. He should have submitted it and then dragged it through (or let it fail if that was its karma). He wasn't forceful enough with his own ideas. And that's been his main weakness in my opinion. I'm hoping that in his second term he allows himself to lead with a bit more vigor.

Rabel, Rosborne, ci…I hope you folks are right. I think Barack Obama deserves a second term…and I am absolutely convinced he is a better choice than any of the people being considered by the other side.

I agree with all of what you say, and will also state that he has disappointed me in many ways during his first three years in office. He was trying to compromise with the republicans even after the GOP said they wanted him to fail. If he had said "no" from the beginning, the GOP wouldn't have tried to play so many games with him, and gotten so many of their "wins." Extending GW Bush's tax cuts, allowing torture of prisoners, expanding the war in Afghanistan, and compromising on ObamaCare were some of his failures. What he did while in office was not the same man who campaigned to become president. After his first three years, I doubt anybody really knows who Obama is. What will he compromise next?

I've written to Obama several times, and have told him all he needs to do to win the next election is to communicate with the American people quickly when the GOP candidates lies about anything.

Obama doesn't need money to win the next election; just tell the truth, and keep the American people informed.

All the GOP candidates are opening up many opportunities for Obama including the economy, contraceptives, immigration, and equal rights for women, minorities, gays, and lesbians, and the GOP is spending tens of millions of dollars to battle their own people.

The GOP is spending time on social issues; it's the economy, stupid!

I'm still giggling about the Daily Show's consternation that both Santorum and Romney are making a dog's breakfast of their campaigns - 'Obama wants every American to go to college - WHAT A SNOB!' 'I'm a bit of a fan of Nascar - I'm friends with some team owners'. 'JFK's speech on church and state made me vomit' 'The trees are the right height in Michigan'.

Good lord. I'd rather hold my nose and vote for obama than hold my dick and vote for either of those two.

Just saw on TV the speech the president gave today. He was an absolute delight.

As for the the four still standing Republicans...I'd amazed the late show hosts are not sending them billions of dollars. They provide more material for these guys than their writers.

Maher said he was warped, but not warped enough to write this ****! "The trees are just the right height" "I love cars" "My wife drives 2 Cadillacs" "Obama is an elitist, he wants all kids to go to college" "The trees are just the right height."

What the **** is going on with these clowns? Who writes this stuff? Is there no one to keep the lid on? Are they Democratic plants out to destroy the Republican Party?