Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Non-Choice

The Non-Choice

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Well, here we are, on the very eve of this election, the culmination of years of campaigning, and after a disastrous four year performance by the incumbent. Many have cast this election as a stark choice between two presidents, two visions, two countries, two futures. They are wrong; it’s not a choice.

After this administration’s handling of Benghazi, replete with the deaths of four Americans following an hours-long siege, not to mention the pleas for assistance gone unanswered and the misdirection and lies put forth by the administration in the attack’s aftermath, there is no American who would vote for Obama. And that’s just one element out of a whole host of foreign policy missteps, from abandoning the Poles to Russia, to promising flexibility with Putin after the election, to ignoring the plight of Iranian protesters, to, well I could go on and on and on.

And while CNN’s Money laughably found Friday’s unemployment percentage rising to 7.9% to be good news, the depth of the economic mire we’re in, as well as the completely unprepared, absurd, and incredibly wrong-headed manner in which Obama has tried to address the issue, have ensured that the American voting public will be sending his ass back to Chicago.

Or at least they should. The fact is, Obama’s performance on virtually every single front has been terrible, and when facts are laid bare no American can vote for the man. This election is truly a non-choice. In 2008, with Obama yet an unknown quantity, and following eight years of Bush, Americans faced a real choice: Bush Lite in McCain, or Obama’s gauzy “Change.” In 2004, there was a choice between George Bush’s status quo in a time of war, or Kerry’s anti-war policies. You can go back to just about every election in memory, and similar choices abound.

However, in 2012, there really is no choice. We have a failed president, up against a challenger who has been successful throughout his career and has experience in the very area where we need experienced leadership. Obama, a radical liberal who has pursued an extreme left agenda, up against a Republican moderate who governed the most liberal state of the union. A politician with no practical worldly experience versus one who has distinguished himself in both the public and private sectors. It’s a long abused cliche to blame any chance Obama has for winning re-election on media bias. But what else keeps him afloat? Obama runs on promises he hasn’t kept, on a record unreported, on failures and scandals unmentioned. There is no question that if he received just a fraction of the bad press Bush did, he’d stand no chance at all of winning a second term. It’s not just media bias, it’s bias in schools, bias in movies and tv. In this age of near universal information availability, it’s astonishing that so many know so very little.

This year we’re not holding an election. November 6th isn’t a choice between two presidents. It’s merely a litmus test to tell us whether anyone is actually paying attention to the facts. Whether ignorance has won the day, and whether the number of voters who really couldn’t care less about the future of this country save for their meager government pittance, has finally overcome the masses who want to work harder and smarter for a better shot at life. Whether class-based revenge trumps the value of the freedoms that have been endowed to us by our creator. November 6th answers the question: have we finally sold our souls short?

It’s kind of scary that we are even at this sorry stage. Freedoms lost may only ever be a generation away, but lately it feels like they are a mere election away. Should Obama lose Tuesday, some 40+ percent of the populace will still have cast their vote for the man and that’s in spite of the lack of progress he’s made throughout his entire career. I know janitors with more impressive accomplishments.

Whether America wins or loses tomorrow, this election isn’t business as usual. It’s a warning, a clarion call for all Americans to take stock in themselves and ask how we even got to this point. Is this what the founders envisioned for us? Is this what we have envisioned for ourselves? Something has gone very wrong in the great experiment. Parameters are off kilter, and the system is not operating within normal parameters. One election won’t fix all that is wrong, but your vote for Mitt Romney tomorrow is a great start on the real road to American recovery.

About The Obnoxious American

  • Glenn Contrarian

    We have a failed president, up against a challenger who has been successful throughout his career and has experience in the very area where we need experienced leadership. Obama, a radical liberal who has pursued an extreme left agenda, up against a Republican moderate who governed the most liberal state of the union.

    Yes, Romney’s been VERY successful, given that he started out as the son of a multimillionaire who ran for president. AND he’s flip-flopped on every issue one cares to name, from health care to abortion to taxes to what have you. Romney wants to spend even MORE on the military when the military itself says they don’t need it! And that’s not even addressing the apparent FACT that Romney hasn’t even paid any taxes for FIFTEEN YEARS…and then when he DID pay taxes the past year or two, it was a lousy 13.9%…AND under Paul Ryan’s budget, he’d pay less than TWO percent. Yeah, that’s a real patriotic red-blooded American you got there, Republicans!

    And when it comes to Romney’s experience as governor, how about taking a second look at what he did – he was FORTY-SEVENTH in the nation in job creation, and he issued EIGHT HUNDRED vetoes. Yeah, that’s real bipartisanship, huh?

    Here’s what I know. When Obama took office, we were losing 800K jobs per month…but now we’re gaining over 150K per month.

    When Obama took office, we were mired in two wars (one of which was unprovoked and illegal, a war crime in the purest sense of the words)…but now one war is over and the other is winding down.

    When Obama took office, the whole damned first world stood on the precipice of another Great Depression – but anyone who actually takes a look at the jobs numbers sees that about six weeks after the stimulus took effect, the jobs market started getting better. If the stimulus was a BAD thing, then why have we had 32 straight months of POSITIVE private sector job growth?

    A few months after Obama took office (seventy-two in-session days of Congress, actually), he no longer had that supermajority that the GOP keeps claiming he had…but instead had to deal with the single most obstructive Congress since the Civil War.

    One wonders what would have happened if 9/11 had happened on Obama’s watch – the way the Republicans are today, we’d have had an open rebellion! But since it was a Republican, well, THAT meant that a Real American was in charge…and that made the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq okay, too!

    The author of this article is so up-in-the-air about Benghazi. Four Americans died. That’s tragic…but not nearly so tragic as the thousands of American military – and the 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children – that were killed in our illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq under our peace-loving Republican leadership at the time. And is this just throwing the blame back at Bush again? I don’t think so, given that 17 of Romney’s 24 advisers are directly out of the Bush administration, including some of the neo-cons that were howling for us to invade Iraq!

    Over one-third of today’s Republicans STILL think Obama was born in Kenya and/or is Muslim. The Republican party has become the party of stupid – not just ignorant stupidity, but of willful stupidity.

  • John Lake

    That’s great rhetoric, little buddy, (actually the Obnoxious American sorta fits) but it just ain’t true. This absolute distortion of the facts that the Republicans spew forth daily, more so in these final days, is disgusting.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I think I read this article on the Monday before Election Day 2004, except that then it was written by a liberal.

    The world is not going to end, nor is the nation going to collapse, because of the election of one man. Even some of the most rabid right-wing bloggers are starting to get that.

  • John Lake

    The world is not going to end, nor is the nation going to collapse, because of…
    Your optimism, Doctor, is endearing. But it really could end. McCain still chants “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and Romney will be the first to flip flop to shoot now, aim later.

  • John Lake

    The RedState blogger is numb from listening to mindless drivel. If the Republican corporate representitives take control, we will be looking at a future in rapid descent. We learn from history that government and society changes, and change is often for the worse.

  • http://americanangle.com Kayhan Nejad

    How in the world is Obama a “radical liberal”? How do his policies represent an “extreme left agenda”? The man’s civil liberties policy and foreign policy are mirror images of Bush’s. His environmental policy hasn’t been far left, and while he’s presided over some increase in welfare and entitlements, it’s very far from “extreme.”

    I honestly don’t know what Obama has to do for this myth of “extremism” or “socialism” to go away. The man could swing to the right of Reagan and some would still hate/love him because of the (D) next to his name.

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    The author of this article has one fact right, it really is a non-choice election.

    Setting aside the thorny issue of Obama hardly differing from a mainstream Republican position, Romney is clearly a moral bankrupt that would sell out anybody and everybody to get his own way, as the disgusting post mortem baptism into his religious cult of his lifelong atheist father in law so starkly showed.

    The USA would only magnify its problems by electing such a corrupting influence as president, so clearly there is no real choice as to who to elect.

    Oh, message to OA: “I’m a Republican who can’t stand the liberal-progressive-marxist direction this country is heading in”.

    If you think there is anything remotely Marxist about the USA you either don’t know what Marxism is or you don’t know what is going on in the USA.

    Liberal is a word the “moral” right uses instead of tolerant because it knows that attacking tolerance would reveal the ugliness that drives it and progressive is the only option because the alternative would be regression.

    Oh, and please correct your misspelling of “Entitlenments” in your “byline…

    Schooled!

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Kayhan, don’t you know that seeing actual reality rather than a “through the looking glass” version of it isn’t allowed in American politics? Obama is about as radical as adding cinnamon to apple pie!

  • Deano

    Even The Economist endorsed Obama and the quite accurately called Obama out for his inadequacies.

    Their comments on Romney and the Republicans were even more telling:

    Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

    and

    the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas

  • The Obnoxious American

    It’s really sad to see so many deluded folks. Obama isn’t radical? Romney’s a failure? The country will face rapid descent if Romney wins?

    You all must be really young. Or deeply deeply misguided. Please stop rooting for a 2nd Obama term, otherwise known as a the last gasp of America.

  • Dr Dreadful

    But it really could end. McCain still chants “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”

    What a strange (satirical?) statement, John. When has McCain said that recently? And just how much influence do you think he would have in a Romney administration?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, if all you can do is scoff at people who see things differently than you do then there’s very little reason to take you seriously.

    I respect you and your opinions a lot, but you’ve become increasingly strident and irrational these last couple of weeks. Hopefully if the election goes the way you want it to and the post-Sandy cleanup starts making some headway you’ll get back to your old self.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc,

    With all due respect, the only post here that is anything more than scoffing at my article is Glenn’s and I’ll get to that one in a bit.

    EVERY OTHER POST makes assertions based in nothing. Kayhan doesn’t even think Obama is radical, even though there is a long list of radical actions and “firsts” that we can point to proving the same.

  • Igor

    @13 Obnox: they are echoing your style, obnox.

    “EVERY OTHER POST makes assertions based in nothing”

  • Dr Dreadful

    Kayhan doesn’t even think Obama is radical, even though there is a long list of radical actions and “firsts” that we can point to proving the same.

    Such as?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc, seriously? I mean, how about the move to direct his INS to not enforce immigration laws, effectively passing the DREAM act without any legislation or representation? That’s a pretty serious and radical action. And mind you, I support several aspects of the DREAM act, as does Romney, and Marco Rubio. But to just give an edict saying so it is written, so it shall be done, don’t you just have a teensy issue with that?

    I’d say, being the first president to openly castigate “the rich” (families making 250k a year) and his support of communist supported Occupy is pretty radical, don’t you think?

    Let’s talk about Benghazi, and the fact that the president lied in the 2nd debate about what he said, not to mention sending out his army of aides to repeat the lie that this had anything to do with a youtube vid. CBS just released a transcript (sunday, online only, wonder why) where Obama refused to call it terrorism on the same day as his speech in the rosegarden, where he didn’t call what happened in Benghazi terrorism.

    How about trying to pass Obamacare via Deem and Pass, or eventually passing it via budget reconcilliation?

    I could go on and on. It’s one thing if you share Obama’s ideology and accept these actions because you agree with the outcome by any means necessary. But if you care about what future presidents (who may not represent your ideals) might do with these vastly expanded powers and lowered presidential standards, then you should have an issue with it. At least have the decency to acknowledge that it isn’t right.

    I have a long record of calling Bush out when I felt he was wrong (such as with his initial management of the war in Iraq) as do many on the conservative side. Shameless Dems by contrast, see no evil, hear no evil, so long as the perpetrator has a D next to his name.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    I mean, how about the move to direct his INS to not enforce immigration laws, effectively passing the DREAM act without any legislation or representation?

    How’s that compare to Bush’s Executive Order #51, which effectively allowed him to become a true dictator ‘in times of emergency’? Oh, but I forgot – Bush was a Republican, so he could be trusted to be a Good American Dictator, I guess.

    I’d say, being the first president to openly castigate “the rich” (families making 250k a year) and his support of communist supported Occupy is pretty radical, don’t you think?

    OA, presidents have castigated the rich for generations – how do you think Truman was able to raise the top marginal tax rate to NINETY-ONE PERCENT, more than THREE TIMES where Romney wants it…and in the following decade, America nearly paid off a debt that was relatively greater than the $16T debt we have today! Speaking of which, OA, why didn’t we go into a Great Depression when the rich were taxed at 91% for ten years, and then at 70% for twenty more years? Why, OA? WHY????

    AND would you care to show where Obama came out in support of the Occupy movement, other than to support their First Amendment rights? And FYI, Occupy was anything BUT a communist movement. It had more in common with the ORIGINAL Boston Tea Party than anything else, seeing as how the Boston Tea Party was a protest against how the corporatists of the day – the East India Company in this case – got to play by a different set of tax rules than everyone else.

    Let’s talk about Benghazi, and the fact that the president lied in the 2nd debate about what he said, not to mention sending out his army of aides to repeat the lie that this had anything to do with a youtube vid.

    No, let’s talk about how all the Red-Blooded REAL Americans – the Republicans – refused to hold Bush accountable for an illegal, unprovoked invasion of a nation that posed NO threat to America…and resulted in the deaths of thousands of American troops (and lifelong disability to tens of thousands more) and in the deaths of 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.

    Until the Republican party holds its own accountable for the mountain, they have NO right to keep pointing at the molehill!

    How about trying to pass Obamacare via Deem and Pass, or eventually passing it via budget reconcilliation?

    Never mind that he’d tried for months to negotiate with the GOP to get health care reform passed – and in the process gave up the public option (which would have introduced some REAL competition). Legislative maneuvering is NOTHING NEW, OA – almost every single legislature and president has used it, from the days of the Founding Fathers till now. Oh, but when Obama uses legislative maneuvers, well, THAT’s not okay, huh?

    I could go on and on. It’s one thing if you share Obama’s ideology and accept these actions because you agree with the outcome by any means necessary.

    “By any means necessary”? Gee, now why did you use THAT particular quote? It wouldn’t be because a guy named Malcolm…naaaah, I won’t go there. The mind boggles…but in any case, the quote could much more appropriately be ascribed to the GOP’s bald-faced voter suppression efforts in Florida, Pennsylvania, and – most egregiously – Ohio. What kind of American thinks it’s acceptable to keep American citizens from voting if they’re “the kind that doesn’t vote like we think they should”? The Republicans in charge of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

    I have a long record of calling Bush out when I felt he was wrong (such as with his initial management of the war in Iraq) as do many on the conservative side.

    Ah, but how many Republicans have held him responsible for the illegal and unprovoked invasion itself? Certainly not your presidential nominee Romney who hired 17 of his 24 advisors directly from the Bush administration!

    Yes, that’s right, OA – by voting for Romney, you really are voting for a third Bush administration – but one on steroids, as Romney’s tax-cutting/safety-net-slashing/defense-budget-booming plan makes clear.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, there’s radical and there’s Radical. I don’t see how any of these actions are “radical” in any sense but being radically different from anything a president has tried before (and you could argue against even that in most of your examples).

    Let’s take them one by one.

    I mean, how about the move to direct his INS to not enforce immigration laws, effectively passing the DREAM act without any legislation or representation?

    There’s plenty of precedent for not enforcing a law, albeit not usually on such a large scale. The statute books of many states and local jurisdictions are full of archaic, unconstitutional, impractical, frivolous or just plain dumb laws that are by and large ignored or disregarded.

    Couple with that the fact that a president choosing not to enforce a law is one of the checks and balances American government is so noteworthy for, and you get something that really isn’t all that radical.

    I’d say, being the first president to openly castigate “the rich” (families making 250k a year)

    I’ve never heard Obama do this. I have heard him opine frequently that folks who are better off can afford to contribute a little more in taxes, and if that’s “openly castigating” then every president who’s ever wanted to tweak the tax system is guilty of castigating taxpayers.

    and his support of communist supported Occupy

    If we’re going to start calling people radical just because they support something communists also support then there are an awful lot of radicals around. For instance, if you support nuclear defense then you are a radical by your own definition because the People’s Republic of China also supports it, as did the Soviet Union.

    Let’s talk about Benghazi

    With respect, in the context of our discussion this makes no sense at all.

    How about trying to pass Obamacare via Deem and Pass

    From Wikipedia again:

    “The procedure is often used to streamline the legislative process, and was used 85 times between 2005 and 2010.”

    Hardly “radical”.

    or eventually passing it via budget reconcilliation?

    Again, plenty of precedent.

    If you’re going to be that exacting, you could make a case for almost any president being “radical”. Bush Jr was radical in his extensive use of signing statements. Reagan was radical with his tax cuts and repeal of price controls. Johnson was radical in pushing through the Civil Rights Act and enacting the “Great Society”. And so on.

    But I don’t think you’re using the word in that sense. I think you mean Obama is politically radical. Wikipedia, which isn’t always the best source but will do for our purposes, defines radicalism in this sense as “political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.” Again, I can’t think of any modern president who hasn’t at least dreamed (aloud) of doing those things – often in the same breath as waxing lyrical about “preserving the American way of life”.

    But I suspect even that’s too broad an interpretation of what you mean. What you actually mean by “radical” is “radical Left”. I grew up at a time when a premium example of a “radical Left” party was front and centre in British politics. Frankly, from my perspective, Obama is to the “radical Left” what McDonald’s is to delicious hamburgers.

  • Clavos

    Until the Republican party holds its own accountable for the mountain, they have NO right to keep pointing at the molehill!

    Bullshit…

    Just. Plain. Bullshit…

  • Igor

    Clavos is out-of-date. Just like his pals Obnox, Warren, etc. They’ve all been bypassed by history. The Reagan idea that government is the problem has FAILED. The evidence of the past 30 years is overwhelming. Not the least of which is going to the brink of national disaster and failure, saved only by a Democrat President, Obama!

    It’s all over for the radical rightists who commandeered the republican party. They are finished.

    The radical rightists have no credibility left. The Nation tried their radical ideas and those ideas failed.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    If Romney hadn’t chosen former Bush advisers for 17 of his 24 advisers, then you’d have a point. But the very fact that he’s got advisers who openly advocated for the Iraq invasion shows that not only is the GOP unwilling to hold its own accountable for their actions, but they are not averse to more of the same. They not only haven’t learned their lesson, but they are refusing to accept that there’s a lesson to be learned in the first place.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “Just. Plain. Bullshit…”

    I had the same reaction to the article

  • Clavos

    I had the same reaction to the article

    Of course you did. No surprise there.

  • Clavos

    Clavos is out-of-date.

    Get in line, Igor. Far better and wiser people than you (isn’t everybody?) have said that long before you.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Rambling rants with little basis in reality usually have that effect on me. Maybe after Romney loses tonight, conservatives will take a step back from foaming at the mouth and come to the realization that Obama doing things they don’t like is not the same thing as Obama doing nothing. Picking a better candidate would have helped as well.

  • Clavos

    conservatives will take a step back from foaming at the mouth

    Not a chance for me. I like foaming at the mouth, and with Obummer reelected, I’ll have no end of reasons to do so.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I wouldn’t say you foam much, Clav. Your approach can be more accurately likened to waiting until the elevator at the AARP National Conference is full, and then farting.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    Considering how well that tactic worked, that makes a lot of sense

  • Clavos

    You’re kidding! AARP has National Conferences? What do all those codgers do at a conference? Sit around in meeting rooms and drool all over each other, then go fart in the elevators?

    Too much. I can just imagine what a crashing bore a conference of old people must be.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Yes, but just imagine what fun crashing a crashing bore of a conference and then farting at everyone would be.

  • Clavos

    Not to mention drooling on the old lady with the her hose around her ankles and lipstick on her nose…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, there’s a few fifty-something girls out there who still look pretty doggone good! Of course that has nothing whatsoever to do with me turning fifty next month….

  • Clavos

    …there’s a few fifty-something girls out there who still look pretty doggone good!

    Oh yeah! My wife, who turned 54 last week, is stunning — even for a woman 10 years her junior. (Oh boy, she’s gonna kill me for publishing her age on BC!)

  • Clavos

    Forgot to mention: in her case, medicine had nothing to do with it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    :)