Why I Support President Barack Obama

There are a number of reasons I am supporting President Obama in the 2012 campaign.  I voted for him in 2008 and I will do so again.  This is a sampling of those reasons.  There are others, but these are the ones that came to mind when I was asked what President Obama’s appeal was, for me, personally, this evening.  As you’ll evidently guess, I took my core beliefs and extrapolated upon them here.  I hope this is coherent and not too random.

As far as I can tell, the GOP platform for this election isn’t creation of jobs or opportunity in this country – it’s the implication that removing Obama will, in and of itself, right the ship.  It is the suggestion that ANYONE can do a better job, and who better than Mitt Romney?  This is the same man that would have let the entire American auto industry – now booming – die on the vine had it been his choice.  This is a man that would eliminate large sectors of public employment, following what appears at present to be an almost disastrous tactic given the results of similar measures in the State of Florida by rogue Governor Rick Scott.  Austerity to Mitt Romney isn’t what it is to the vast majority of Americans.  Austerity to Mitt Romney is not taking his horses out to compete in dressage.  Austerity to Mitt Romney is eliminating state-side jobs to bump his stocks.  He has NO plan.  The GOP has no viable plan.  Obama has one, and it will work, in my opinion.  He is bringing us out of the worst economic backslide in my lifetime.  He deserves 2 terms to do it.

Health care reform is one of my pet peeves.  Yes, PPACA is perhaps the most highly divisive legislation to come through the system since the implementation of Medicare/Medicaid.  I am disappointed that it doesn’t do MORE…and that we’re not going to a single-payer system as President Obama initially planned.  But it IS a good start, and I think at a bare minimum it will force medical insurance providers in this country to trim the fat off of their considerable budgets and focus on actually providing health care for once.  I’ve heard doctors come out in favor of this because it will eliminate a large portion of their uncompensated expenses.  It will provide insurance for millions of uninsured and uninsurable Americans, perhaps me included.  The system before President Obama was sick and broken…it is less so now, and that is what is ultimately important.  I personally believe that in a country the size of the United States, that single-payer is inevitable, if we are to use our resources to the benefit of all Americans in this regard.  I believe in American ingenuity, but the barriers to a private solution have proven all but impossible to overcome..or even be attempted with any real vigor.  Call it socialism if you like.  It is what it is…but in my opinion it is the right direction to go.

Mitt Romney is a fabulously wealthy man primarily supported by fabulously wealthy corporations.  Most conservatives I interact with will deny this, but given where Mitt comes from, how he earned his millions, and who is funding his campaign, it’s a de facto reality.  Mitt is perfectly happy with the Citizens United decision, which is against the vast majority of American voters’ views…Obama opposes it, and his lone appointed Justice, Sotomayor, was intelligent enough to question the sanity of the conservative majority upholding it.  The issues presented, and the problems caused by this decision, are more central to our continuing democracy than any specter of socialism that PPACA has created.  As Justice Stevens opined, "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."  This is, in my opinion, what transpired in the Scott Walker recall vote in Wisconsin, when the vast majority of his financial support came from corporate interests OUTSIDE the state of Wisconsin.  It is happening now with Mitt Romney.  Look at who props him up.  His average campaign contribution is around $2,500.00!  Obama’s is somewhere south of $100, but there are a lot more of them.  Corporations cannot be allowed to buy elections.  Whoever appoints the next three justices, likely to occur in the upcoming term, will determine the direction of this nation in ways that we cannot yet see.  All we can hope is that the person instrumental in appointing those justices has the best interests of the American people at heart, and not his corporate masters.  Even Ron Paul understands this.  I cannot see why rational conservatives don’t take this more seriously.  When this decision is reconsidered by the SCOTUS – and it WILL be – I hope the correct decision is made.  That only happens if President Obama is re-elected.

This President has shown resilience in his foreign policy, and we haven’t had any major security lapses or terrorist attacks under his watch.  His policies have been strong enough to deter our enemies, but he is also circumspect enough to command more respect in the international community than he does on the home front!  I do not like that Gitmo is still open, or that we’re still neck deep in Afghanistan, but I recognize that the misplaced priorities of the prior administration are the reasons why the job wasn’t even begun to be handled with any intelligence until BHO’s administration.  I have seen NOTHING from Mitt Romney to make me believe he has the strength of character, or the intelligence, to deal with issues such as the arms buildup in Iran with anything more than knee-jerk, corporate reflex, which is to say he would address these issues from a purely fiscal perspective.  Where is our bread buttered?  Right or wrong, that’s what interest would be served with a Romney presidency.

The President has been unwavering on his commitment to eliminating the Bush era tax cuts, and to close further loopholes which allow the wealthiest of Americans avoid paying their proportional fair share.  Just as a man who has $10,000.00 and gives $1,000.00 in taxes is far more impacted than a man who has $1,000,000.00 and gives $100,000.00, it simply isn’t right, on a moral level, to continue to break the lower and middle classes for the benefit of the rich.  You’re damn right I support unions, I support labor, I support fair wages, and I support the Obama Jobs Bill.  This country became strong because of its immense, relatively wealthy MIDDLE class, which is almost gone now because of continuing policies of GOP backed candidates.  In the middle of this recession, when we’re just beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, we can’t afford to drudge back along the same path only to find a new, more circuitous route to prosperity.  Once again, most Americans are in favor of the wealthiest Americans paying more than a proportional share of the tax burden, something that they uniquely can afford.  Make no mistake – Romney isn’t ANTI-tax.  No Republican has been in my lifetime, not even Reagan.  The only question is WHO will get hit the hardest.  Romney will cast the tax burden anywhere except in the direction of his masters.  The middle and lower classes in the United States cannot afford a Romney presidency.  I’ll give you one guess who, in fact, is actually in a position to handle a little more weight than they currently have.

Finally, I am a Christian.  I form my opinions based upon what I think Jesus would do, or say, as cliché as that might sound.  As such…if it benefits the poor, the disenfranchised and powerless, if it helps heal the sick and feed the hungry, if it reduces suffering and promotes peace, I’m going to be all for it.  I feel strongly that Mitt Romney has tunnel vision regarding these issues and the social issues of the day as a sideline curiosity.  I do not think he will continue to address them as President Obama has.  He lacks the commitment and the fortitude to buck the hand that feeds him.  Most of us do, in the end.

Ultimately, we can only vote our conscience.  I will be voting for President Barack Hussein Obama…and I will do so proudly, with a spirit that is unafraid.

Back in The Saddle

It's been a while.


I vacillate between being too busy to write, and being too complacent to write.


But every now and I again, I hit that happy medium, a productive zone where I think I can and will make things happen in most facets of my life, including my online existence.


So here I am.  I've gotten rid of my tight golf swing that turns over everything to the left, and I'm not quite yet to the tired, muscles-aching slice that comes when this out of shape body has had enough physical activity for one afternoon.


In that wonderful "in between" is where I find my creative mind...and do my best work.


So, anywhoo...here goes...


For those of you who don't know, I've taken to reading the Bible while "indisposed."  Yes, that's right.  I do my Bible study in questionable environs.  I look at it this way - I know that, at least once a day, I'll be reading my Bible, even if it is for just a few minutes...and sometimes, I get to read it for much...MUCH...longer.   Unpleasant imagery aside, we all must find contemplative time.


Reading in Mark today, I stumbled across the following:


Mark 8:22-26 (NRSV)

They came to Bethsaida. Some people brought a blind man to him and begged him to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, ‘Can you see anything?’ And the man looked up and said, ‘I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.’Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. Then he sent him away to his home, saying, ‘Do not even go into the village.’ 

I don't recall having ever discussed this particular passage before.  The caption before these verses reads "Jesus Cures a Blind Man at Bethsaida."  I also don't claim to be a Biblical scholar, but as much as I have read, and heard, it surprised me that I've never heard a sermon, or read an analysis, of this particular bit of scripture.


Most of you reading this know that I wear contacts or glasses.  You probably don't know that I'm probably legally blind.  There is no way the Georgia DDS would let me near a car without corrective eye wear.  To put it more plainly...if I were sitting in Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn, I'd have a hard time reading the end zone scripts of Auburn and Tigers.


But here, our fellow believer from Bethsaida must have been truly, nearly irrevocably blind.  It took Jesus not once, but TWICE, to fix this man's eyesight.  I looked around but I couldn't locate another Biblical example of Jesus having to "give it the ol' college try" once again just to make sure his healing took.


This immediately called to mind the scene in Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, when Merry and Pippin first meet Treebeard, the Ent, who has rescued them from the clutches of a particularly nasty looking orc.  The conversation went something like this:

Merry: The tree is talking!

Treebeard:  Tree?  I am no tree.  I am an Ent!

Pippin:  Stop talking to it Merry!  Don't encourage it!

Jesus must've been a bit disconcerted when the man claimed to see people that looked like trees walking.  He clearly needed a little more tending to.  After a second application of Jesus' salve of choice, his own saliva, the man's vision was fully restored.  Hallelujah!  Note to self: This would have probably been more agreeable than the scales Paul received or the dirt and saliva mixture that the first blind man, outside of Jerusalem, was given before he too, was healed.


Jesus loved to make points for the disciples.  Certainly, at least one or two of them were around for some "education."  Jesus was constantly revealing Himself to them, giving them bits and pieces of His true nature, and purpose.  Perhaps this miracle was a part of that.


Or maybe, just maybe ... Jesus used this as an illustration of the power of faith.


We know from Jesus' mustard seed parable that where faith is concerned, a little goes a long, long way.  Like, being able to move mountains.  Being able to raise the dead.  Being able to walk through "this sorry world", as Hank Williams aptly put it, with a brave face, undaunted by the taunts and jeers of others.   Not being smug in your faith, your beliefs, but being comfortable with them.


So, perhaps the man from Bethsaida lacked faith, or more appropriately, he had to be shown a little of what was behind Door Number 2 before he committed himself to believing that this rabbi, this Christ, was indeed the Great Physician that he had heard of spoken of often in incredulous tones around the village.


The mustard seed parable also tells us, implicitly, that true faith is relatively rare.  Perhaps it has always been so.  I suspect there are enough obstacles to faith to prevent most of us from reaching the plateau our natural human yearning for the Divine calls us to seek - that level of comfort, of trust, of acceptance after which we no longer feel the need to question, to analyze, to perfect our faith.


I'm still a seeker.  I can see, even if my vision is murky and untrustworthy.  His truth is illuminating, though I, like the blind man, still want to insist that Jesus show me what's behind the curtain.


One of these days I hope to come to the realization that there is no curtain.  That, I think, is close to true faith.