Voting Against a Communist Muslim who Hates America and White People

A letter in this morning's Kansas City Star laments the fact that the author did not support Hillary Clinton back in 2008 because "at least she is an American and shares our values."   I watched quite a bit of the Republican Convention and I have been reading the magazines and newspapers.   For the life of me, I don't recognize this "Obama" person who so many seem to detest and despise.   Most of the "reasons" given for opposing "Obama" are not even really true.   He's a Muslim.   He was not born in America.   He hates America.   He is working to turn the United States into a Communist or Socialist country.   He is a typical tax and spend Democrat.   I heard Glenn Beck say a couple of years ago that his problem is that "he hates white people."   Interesting in that he had little contact with his African father and was raised by a white mother and two white grandparents.   But he hates white people, even when his own family is made up of white people.    Hank Williams, Jr., says that he hates America and hates the military.   And probably a couple more things (I didn't hear last night's concert).

The Romney/Ryan speeches at the Republican Convention set out a list of reasons to vote against President Obama.   The problem is that virtually none of those reasons were really based on accurate facts.    Independent fact checkers debunked virtually all of their complaints.   The President did not remove the work requirement from welfare;   his plan for the Affordable Care Act did not steal 716 billion dollars from Medicare;   he has not increased government spending to any measurable degree;   he did not conduct an "Apology for America tour;"   the Affordable Care Act does not add to the deficit, etc., etc, etc.    It makes me ask myself this question:   if virtually all of the Republicans' complaints about the President's performance in office are untrue, which numerous independent sources have concluded that they were, then what do they really have to complain about.    They suggest, with no evidence to back it up, that he is planning to take everybody's guns away.    They claim he is a "Socialist" primarily based on his sponsorship of the Affordable Care Act, which was based intentionally on the Republican's own plan from the Clinton years.    Doesn't the requirement that you have to carry your own health insurance sound consistent with the Republicans theme of "individual responsibility?"   They can't seem to find one thing that is actually accurate to complain about.   The "you didn't build that" complaint is a good example.    They have parsed his actual words into a statement that he did not in fact make--and then gone on the attack against the statement that he did not in fact make.   The argument that he is trying to remove the work requirement from welfare--which has been debunked by essentially everybody--is of course a not-so-subtle appeal to racism.    It sounds like Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queens" pitch from 1980.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X_8E3ENrKrQ   The Romney/Ryan handlers know full well that this ad will fan the flames of racial resentment among working class whites.   The Romney/Ryan handlers, when confronted by the news media with the true facts about the work requirement not actually being removed from welfare, simply said that this is their most effective ad and they are going to continue running it, facts be damned.    In deed, "facts be damned" seems to me to be the theme of the entire Republican campaign.    Of course, the Republican faithful will simply respond that the Democrats do all these same things.   On a historical basis, of course, both parties have had their moments, from Mayor Daley's ballot box stuffing in Chicago in the old days to Watergate and the Republicans' "dirty tricks" and spying on the Democrats.   However, in 2012, the lie detector seems to be going off all the time on Republicans and not nearly so much on the Democrats.

I told a friend of mine the other day who is a long-time conservative voter.   If you, as a well-informed conservative voter want to vote against President Obama for legitmate reasons based on true facts, then by all means vote your conscience.    But if the Republican Party just simply has to make up a bunch of stuff that isn't true and didn't really happen just to stir up resentment against the incumbent President, then I think voters should not be deluded into voting based on mythology.

Here's my main reason for voting for President Obama.    In the last four years, he hasn't started up any new wars.    He has ended one of former President Bush's wars and is about to end the other one.   His intervention in Libya was the only thing he has initiated.   That was a very limited action which was backed by the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and virtually all other world orgainizations.   In my view, he did exactly the right thing on Libya.   There was a strong international consensus that something needed to be done to protect the citizens of Libya against the extreme actions of the Gaddafi regime and we played a limited role in a united action.  

Not having started any new wars would not in most years I have voted been all that big of a deal.    But in this day and age of a war mongering Republican Party, that is a good enough reason for me to vote to stay on the same less belligerent path we have been on since 2008.    If the Republicans regain the White House, you can bet your bottom dollar that we will soon find ourselves in another war or two.    John McCain and many others would already have us in Syria and Iran.   I say let's lower the volume and stay on the less aggressive path we are on. That is our best chance of saving more of our money and reining in the deficit.