I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Thursday, October 25, 2012

voting time

I was tempted to title this:  Whatcha gonna do, Leroy?

The grades on the sections were:

                              Domestic               Foreign Policy                 Miscellaneous
Obama                   B                            B+                                   D

Romney                 C                            C                                      B

So that is very close and it looks like Obama gets the nod. 

Of course it is not that simple.  I could assign an importance number to each of the variables and get a sort of “mini Electoral College” vote, but I won’t.

The five most important issues for me are:

1.   Fiscal policy
2.   Obama’s foreign policy
3.   Healthcare
4.   Courts                        and
5.   Immigration

In that order.

Both of them will have to deal with 1 and 5 and I don’t see much hope that I will like the result in either case.
2 and 3 go to Obama and
4 goes to Romney.

So as Jimmy Fallon said in his imitation of James Taylor:  "I guess I'll vote for Obama one more time again."

It makes me sad in a way because Obama irritates me on a number of things.  (see the earlier notes on the campaign)  If I had to reduce the irritation to one word it would be "arrogance".

post decision note:  I heard today that Obama says his first focus in the second term will be a grand compromise on the debt and secondly on a comprehensive immigration policy.
A little bonus from my point of view.

PS  It is barely possible that I would change.

PPS  If Romney wins I will be back with a post about silver linings.

PPPS  I sometimes vote "strategically", that is for someone less than my first choice.  For example I leaned toward Reagan in 1984, but I knew that he was going to win big, so I voted for Mondale.  Why?  Because when these guys win big it goes to their head.


  1. The defining choice criterion for me is which candidate (as President) would give me the least increase in government.

    1. I expect that that means that you are going the other way.

    2. Although I sometime complain about a two party system I will admit that reducing the (meaningful) choices on Election Day to an “either or” is probably a good thing.

      It is my perception that a Romney administration would increase government less rapidly that a 2nd term Obama administration. My vote for Prez will be an R.

      As you pointed out in your original post a more complex rating model could have involved a weighting factor for each variable. That too could make a difference in choices. Based on past posts on this blog I think you and I BOTH have issues where this Administration has ignored laws. In my weighting system that would border on being a deal killer.

  2. Wayne it seems that you are at that all too often American position of having to hold your nose and vote for the one you perceive as the least objectionable. I don't think there's any mystery that I have early voted for the President. Of course my vote won't mean squat here in Texas, but what the heck. I done my duty.

    As far as the administration's law-ignoring ways are concerned, I know my position is unpopular on this blog, but I believe personally that if a person is presented with a choice of doing what that person's morals and ethics tell them is the right action, or following the law, I would always encourage, all other things being equal (e.g., they're not insane), that person to follow what they believe to be right. I am aware of the slippery slope and I grant that that is an issue with my belief. But NOT doing what you believe to be the right thing, especially when it effects so many lives negatively, is just unconscionable, to my way of thinking. A simple example would be if you are standing on a corner and the light tells you not to walk, but you see that someone's life is in danger in the middle of the street and you could in some way save their life if you are willing to break the law and walk against the light. Walking against the light is clearly illegal but I think the decision is a no brainer. But, could someone use that precedent to walk against the light for other non-lifesaving purposes? Perhaps. One could argue that the lifesaver person was not punished for walking against the light, therefore neither should anyone else. Pretty soon you've got pedestrian anarchy. Simplistic? Yes. But not entirely off point. (one of my infamous emotional appeals)

    1. The oath that an officer (both commissioned and non-commissioned) in the US military takes requires that they follow orders given by superiors AND specifically that they will NOT follow illegal orders. There is the necessary exception. Most Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) for responding to emergencies have a defined escalation procedure that may be circumvented in cases of imminent danger. There is the necessary exception.

      To instruct private companies to ignore the requirements of the HARM act and further state that the FED will pick up any resulting fines is a disregard for the law that exceeds my tolerance level.

    2. I understand and respect your position.

  3. Bruce,

    I would I would support you on the idea that there are circumstances in which violating a law for a greater good is the right thing to do.

    In the case of Obama I think that you are going to have a hard time arguing that that is what he is doing. It seems to me that they (the immigration case and the HARM case) are simply promoting your reelection. In the case of the justification for drone attacks it is more covering a ridiculous political position that he has taken in the past.

    I don't think that in any of those cases a greater good can be argued. Unless one considers his reelection the greatest good possible.