Friday, December 16, 2011

"Anyone But Obama"

Last night's GOP debate sickened me. There were a few exceptions, of course--Ron Paul's answers were, typically, quite good, and Romney was surprisingly well reasoned in a few places. Gingrich was his usual slimy self, and I've discovered that Huntsman just doesn't sit well with me; he strikes me as too much of an oily politician playboy for me to enjoy listening to him talk. Bachmann regaled us with her usual ignorance and then protestations that she wasn't ignorant, sprinkled with several ill-timed jabs against Obama, Santorum trailed behind the rest of the candidates, and Ron Paul made everybody uncomfortable when he said Iran wasn't a threat--and was heartily ridiculed by the commentators, who set themselves up as "rational Americans".

And then we reached the end of the debate, and I decided that the Republican Party, en masse, has entered their bid for a personal vendetta. Because winning this election isn't about helping the American people. It isn't about lowering taxes. It isn't about bringing freedom back into our society. Heck, it isn't even about the triumph of civil discourse over the evil liberal hordes.

No, of course not. This election is about one man: Barack Obama, duly elected ruler of the United States of America. At least, according to everyone but Ron Paul at last night's debate. Apparently, the GOP field has only one goal, and that goal trumps all others: to beat Barack Obama on November 6, 2012.

Naturally, this sentiment was heartily embraced by Newt Gingrich, who is convinced that he (with his upstanding moral record and his proven ability to follow through on his political promises) is the only one who can beat Obama. In fact, he had quite the moment up on stage as he all but said--"If you don't vote for me, you're voting for Obama and you'll rot in hell." The others heartily backed up this sentiment (except of course for Ron Paul, who offered a somewhat inspiring speech about political discourse and its place), and every single one of them managed to put in a plug about their future administrations. Of course.

But what really concerns me is that so many people who aren't sitting on a cushion are buying into this idea. That is, the idea that anybody (absolutely anybody) would be better than Obama.

Hey, at least his replacement wouldn't be a Democrat.

Because that makes a whole ton of difference, you know. I mean, it kept Obama from starting wars--just like Bush--and giving out taxpayer money to wasteful businesses--just like Bush--and ramping up government control of things that aren't theirs to control--just like Bush--and used the media to propagandize the public so they'd accept ridiculous security measures--just like Bush. As we can see, having someone from a different party in office can completely change the government's policies. And changing from "Democrat" to "Republican" next year will completely reverse this trend. Because a Gingrich/Romney/Bachmann/Perry/Santorum administration would be utterly different from an Obama one.


Let's just put it this way: If I see another "Anyone but BO" bumper sticker, I think I'll puke.


Stephen Whitecar said...


One question and one point.
1) I have no idea what the basis for the Newt thing is. I'm trying to get a straight answer from conservatives but they don't seem to like inferences that their guy is a really just an ego-maniacal jerk who doesn't actually have conservative policies in his past or current agenda. I mean, moon bases? Really? That's conservative small government stuff? I'm not sure that Ohio, particularly suburban Ohio, is peopled by fewer ardent conservatives than Texas, but perhaps they are less articulate here than other versions in other locations. I really hope it doesn't just come down to "This guy sounds like he really hates Obama and liberals and the media and I too hate all those things, therefore he must be a great guy", but that seems to be the only thing I can find.

2) Liberals, what I can find of them publicly, are just as annoying. That Warren clip was pretty bad for its straw man arguments concerning the basic construction of governments within societies as though this speaks to the proper size and specific roles of government, but it got around fast. They're now circulating a Clooney quote about Obama as some sort of "this is the guy we elected, stand by him no matter what!", and then rattling off a bunch of accomplishments that would be trumpeted to the hills if he wasn't a Democrat, supposedly because Republicans are more loyal and don't form machine gun circles of death for their own. Partly this was ironic because some of the list would very well be trumpeted if he were a Republican, with minimal concern. But mostly it was just more of the same red-blue team building that is so pathetic in these GOP debates within the "anybody but Obama" construction, the inverted "anybody but Obama would be terrible" argument as though this justified anything and everything that is done.

As a consequence, and combined with the sagas of SOPA and the DoD bill, I've basically been in full F-U mode for both sides since election day.

Liberty said...

Heh, I think you've pretty much figured Newt's appeal out. Everyone I've talked to knows he's an idiot who can't keep a promise or a wife to save his life, but they're so stuck on "Obama is evil" that they can't see the drawbacks to their own messiah. -.-

And yes, the liberals are pretty much just as annoying. I have several die-hard liberal friends on Facebook, and not more than one or two of them will admit that Obama may have done wrong things. Gr.