Mott: as a moderate, why are you voting for Obama?

Rationalist

Hail Voltaire
Mott, in the past you've claimed to be a moderate, and even a former Republican. Yet, you insist that you are voting for Obama. Can you explain why you believe Obama is the correct choice for moderates?

I would suggest that Romney is the true moderate in the race. Yes, he has to pander to the far-right in order to win, but he is not an ideologue (I don't think anyone would argue otherwise) and I believe he will govern as a centrist. It is also arguable that Romney is less likely to drag the country into another war, as he will want to avoid any comparisons to Bush in '16 - a dilemma that Obama won't face.
 
Mott, in the past you've claimed to be a moderate, and even a former Republican. Yet, you insist that you are voting for Obama. Can you explain why you believe Obama is the correct choice for moderates?

I would suggest that Romney is the true moderate in the race. Yes, he has to pander to the far-right in order to win, but he is not an ideologue (I don't think anyone would argue otherwise) and I believe he will govern as a centrist. It is also arguable that Romney is less likely to drag the country into another war, as he will want to avoid any comparisons to Bush in '16 - a dilemma that Obama won't face.

Mutt has proclaimed that he will vote for Obama because Obama 'killed Osama'. That is reason enough according to Mutt.
 
Mott, in the past you've claimed to be a moderate, and even a former Republican. Yet, you insist that you are voting for Obama. Can you explain why you believe Obama is the correct choice for moderates?

I would suggest that Romney is the true moderate in the race. Yes, he has to pander to the far-right in order to win, but he is not an ideologue (I don't think anyone would argue otherwise) and I believe he will govern as a centrist. It is also arguable that Romney is less likely to drag the country into another war, as he will want to avoid any comparisons to Bush in '16 - a dilemma that Obama won't face.

I know this because I spend too much time on here. The other day when someone on the left was complaining Obama wasn't liberal enough Mott said Obama is center to center-left, just like he is, so he's happy with him.
 
I know this because I spend too much time on here. The other day when someone on the left was complaining Obama wasn't liberal enough Mott said Obama is center to center-left, just like he is, so he's happy with him.

Wow... Mutt must not get out much.

:facepalm:
 
Actually I agree with you Romney is a right of center moderate. Where I disagree with you is that Obama is not. Obama is a left of center moderate. The fact that he's villified by the far left (and I would referenc BAC's posts) as he is by the far right is pretty much proof of that. Just as Romney's being largely disliked by the right wing base of the Republican party is pretty clear indicator that he's a moderate too. I feel both men are competent and clearly qualified for this office. Our nation should be governed well regardless of who wins and in spite of all the acrymonious hyperbole heaped upon both candidates by partisan opponents.

So why do I consider myself a moderate? Well I don't completely. Back in the day when I was a young Republican it was ok to be a social liberal. I have always been a social liberal. Why? Because it's won the test of history. At least I can say that it has done so in our country. Every time the forces of social conservatism have precipitated a political crisis in our nation the forces of social liberalism have won. Why? Because in the democratic republic our founding fathers designed where individual freedoms are protected and as a nation predicated upon all men being equal in the eyes of the law the forces of liberty and freedom have won out virtually everytime. The prevailing social class of the time may not have cared for people owning no property having the right to vote but that freedom won out. Same with slavery. Freedom won out. I could list a bunch of other examples.

As for the economic side, I'm right of center. I'm very much in favor of market capitalism, though I reject laissez-fair capitalism (because it doesn't work), I believe in the Keynesian economic model (which does work) and I reject supply side economics for what it is (reverse socialism where money is redistributed, unproductively, upward, instead of downward. It has the same fatal flaws as socialist command economies only in the reverse direction). Contrary to what conservative taking heads say, believing in the Keynesian modeal and not supply side economics does not make one a socialist. I firmly believe in individual entreprenuership, the puritan work ethic and that those who produce the most should be the ones to enjoy the fruits of their labors and I abhor crony capitalism. I also believe that we, as individuals have a responsibility to our communities and our society at large. That we need to work together to advance the common good. This belief is in no way, shape or form an attempt to sacrifice my own best interest on the utopian alter of a socialist state. That's complete non-sense. Family and community are the basic functional units of our civilization and we must work together, cooperate and share responsibilities at times to advance our shared interests. This, again, is not socialism which has become a canard when people work together to promote a common interest against an entrenched interest by that entrenched interest.

On the foriegn policy side I am truly a moderate in that I reject both isolationism, as well as, military interventionism, adventurism and colonialism. The only real justification for the use of American armed forces is when some foreign power, nation or entity presents a clear and present danger to the national security of our nation.

So with that set of belief and an understanding of both candidates it's easy to see that I could vote either way. So why Obama?

Well I stated an oath after the 911 terrorist act after Al Queda had been identified as the organization who organized and executed the attack that whomever was the occupant of the White House when Osama bin Ladin was captured or killed that I would support and vote for them in their next election. I would have voted for Bush in 2004 had he killed Bin Ladin in 2003, for example (much as I disliked Bush). I keep my oaths.

But putting aside my oath I'd still vote for Obama over Romney for two main reasons both of which have mostly to do with his party then he personally. As long as the Republican party embraces "The Southern Strategy" and the bigotry, racism and anti-intillectualism associated with it, I cannot in a good conscience vote for a Republican candidate for President. In addition, I will not support any candidate who promotes supply side economic policies as they are not in my best interest to do so as well as being the single contributing cause to our nations current debt problem.

Does this answer your question?
 
Last edited:
I know this because I spend too much time on here. The other day when someone on the left was complaining Obama wasn't liberal enough Mott said Obama is center to center-left, just like he is, so he's happy with him.
Much more concisely stated than my post but that's me, ask me what time it is and I'll tell you how to build a clock. LOL
 
I know this because I spend too much time on here. The other day when someone on the left was complaining Obama wasn't liberal enough Mott said Obama is center to center-left, just like he is, so he's happy with him.

Obama is center-right.

No "left" person of any stripe wages needless wars for profit the way Obama does.

No "left" person of any stripe agress with NDAA.
 
It shows you just how far to the left is. That is the only way a person could view Obama as a centrist or center-left.

Facts tell a completely different story.

Obama is not a leftist, socialist, or can even be thought of as a progressive.

He's center-right .. and so are his policies.
 
Facts tell a completely different story.

Obama is not a leftist, socialist, or can even be thought of as a progressive.

He's center-right .. and so are his policies.

Obama care is not center right... it is leftist
Bowing down to unions is not center right... it is leftist
'tax the rich' is not center right, it is leftist
Keynesian (at least the Dems version) is not center right... it is leftist
Increasing government control rather than solving problems is not center right... it is leftist
 
what you people call Obamacare was a republican idea to counter Hilarys plan in the 90s

Yep. Amazing that this Republican plan to mandate that everyone buy health insurance is now called "leftist" by some. You seriously have to be freaking brain dead. I don't mean just stupid. I mean brain dead. Check into to the morgue, you're done here.
 
Actually I agree with you Romney is a right of center moderate. Where I disagree with you is that Obama is not. Obama is a left of center moderate. The fact that he's villified by the far left (and I would referenc BAC's posts) as he is by the far right is pretty much proof of that. Just as Romney's being largely disliked by the right wing base of the Republican party is pretty clear indicator that he's a moderate too. I feel both men are competent and clearly qualified for this office. Our nation should be governed well regardless of who wins and in spite of all the acrymonious hyperbole heaped upon both candidates by partisan opponents.

So why do I consider myself a moderate? Well I don't completely. Back in the day when I was a young Republican it was ok to be a social liberal. I have always been a social liberal. Why? Because it's won the test of history. At least I can say that it has done so in our country. Every time the forces of social conservatism have precipitated a political crisis in our nation the forces of social liberalism have won. Why? Because in the democratic republic our founding fathers designed where individual freedoms are protected and as a nation predicated upon all men being equal in the eyes of the law the forces of liberty and freedom have won out virtually everytime. The prevailing social class of the time may not have cared for people owning no property having the right to vote but that freedom won out. Same with slavery. Freedom won out. I could list a bunch of other examples.

As for the economic side, I'm right of center. I'm very much in favor of market capitalism, though I reject laissez-fair capitalism (because it doesn't work), I believe in the Keynesian economic model (which does work) and I reject supply side economics for what it is (reverse socialism where money is redistributed, unproductively, upward, instead of downward. It has the same fatal flaws as socialist command economies only in the reverse direction). Contrary to what conservative taking heads say, believing in the Keynesian modeal and not supply side economics does not make one a socialist. I firmly believe in individual entreprenuership, the puritan work ethic and that those who produce the most should be the ones to enjoy the fruits of their labors and I abhor crony capitalism. I also believe that we, as individuals have a responsibility to our communities and our society at large. That we need to work together to advance the common good. This belief is in no way, shape or form an attempt to sacrifice my own best interest on the utopian alter of a socialist state. That's complete non-sense. Family and community are the basic functional units of our civilization and we must work together, cooperate and share responsibilities at times to advance our shared interests. This, again, is not socialism which has become a canard when people work together to promote a common interest against an entrenched interest by that entrenched interest.

On the foriegn policy side I am truly a moderate in that I reject both isolationism, as well as, military interventionism, adventurism and colonialism. The only real justification for the use of American armed forces is when some foreign power, nation or entity presents a clear and present danger to the national security of our nation.

So with that set of belief and an understanding of both candidates it's easy to see that I could vote either way. So why Obama?

Well I stated an oath after the 911 terrorist act after Al Queda had been identified as the organization who organized and executed the attack that whomever was the occupant of the White House when Osama bin Ladin was captured or killed that I would support and vote for them in their next election. I would have voted for Bush in 2004 had he killed Bin Ladin in 2003, for example (much as I disliked Bush). I keep my oaths.

But putting aside my oath I'd still vote for Obama over Romney for two main reasons both of which have mostly to do with his party then he personally. As long as the Republican party embraces "The Southern Strategy" and the bigotry, racism and anti-intillectualism associated with it, I cannot in a good conscience vote for a Republican candidate for President. In addition, I will not support any candidate who promotes supply side economic policies as they are not in my best interest to do so as well as being the single contributing cause to our nations current debt problem.

Does this answer your question?

We agree on much. In my mind, essentially everything you said would indicate a vote for Romney, yet you are voting for Obama because the GOP supposedly embraces anti-intellectualism, bigotry, racism, and supply-side economics.

First, I would ask you to provide concrete examples to support your claims of anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and racism. It sounds like you're simply swallowing whatever the far left dishes out. I will agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem in some GOP circles (namely the evangelical crowd), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. As for claims of bigotry and racism, that's simply bullshit.

Second, I would point out that Romney's tax reform proposal is more Keynesian than Obama's. In Keynesian economics, taxes are reduced during a recession, not increased. Obama isn't even really a Keynesian. He's more like an Don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-doing-ian. ;)

Ultimately, I would argue that Romney is the best shot at preserving progressive government. With some adjustments, he will save programs that will otherwise go bankrupt. Democrats choose to ignore this problem.
 
Back
Top