Both parties should hold their candidates responsible – NOT just put them on a pedestal

After two long years of election coverage I can see why Democrats and Republicans love their presidential candidate.  Both Obama and Romney are obviously intelligent, each seem to be devout family men, both are excellent speakers, and each have a resume anyone would be proud of.

The part that bothers me though is that devout party members seem to ignore their candidate’s flaws and mistakes.  Can a responsible voter really put the blinders up and pretend their candidate is perfect? Here are three quick things I rarely hear party loyalists seriously discuss.

Drones:

If there is one issue both candidates agree on it is the use of Drones.  One one hand I understand.  Drones keep American’s out of harms way and give us the capability of launching strikes and gathering intelligence at a distance; however, in many ways the use of drones makes it to easy and guilt free to take a life.

When killing feels a lot like a video game its hard to take responsibility or feel remorse for your actions.  I’d argue that is dangerous.

After the multiple reports of Drone Double Taps (a second bombing targeting first responders to initial drone attacks) the situation becomes even more distasteful.  I’d like to hear both candidates discuss this during the debates.

NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act):

Obama signed into law the NDAA in December 2011.  The most controversial part authorizes indefinite military detention without charge or trial. That includes military charges brought upon US citizens.

Doesn’t this portion of the bill have a large potential for abuse?

Romneycare:

Most “Obama-care hating Republicans” seem to have completely forgotten about Romneycare.  Governor Romney essentially implemented Obamacare at the state level – now he claims Obamacare is a horrible and evil thing.

For me this calls into question Romney’s lack of consistency during the entire election cycle.  What does Romney really believe?  Where does he really stand?  Can anyone decipher what he says for political gain versus what he honestly believes?  I can’t and I wish more Republicans would call him out for it.

The Benghazi “Riot” Lies:

You probably heard about a US ambassador being murdered during riots on September 11th of this year.  The Obama administration claimed these riots were caused by an Anti-Muslim youtube video that went viral.  That has been proven false again and again.

What’s more is that a recent article by Reuters even found evidence the administration knew this to be false before airing the story to the public.  It was actually an apparently preventable terrorist attack left ignored.  Why was that not brought up in the debate and why is the media remaining virtually silent about it?

People planning to vote for Obama should demand answers.

The National Deficit:

Both Obama and Romney claim to be taking the national deficit seriously; however, Obama is only adding to it and Romney can’t give any details on how he plans to reduce it. This is probably the biggest joke of the election and the biggest lie propagated by both parties.

If neither party plans on actually doing a thing about the national debt then they should just say so.  Democrats should demand Obama’s budget reduce the deficit and Republicans supporters should force Romney to painstakingly outline how his plan will reduce the deficit on a line by line basis.

If both candidates continue to lie while avoiding the details – neither of them deserve our vote.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Both parties should hold their candidates responsible – NOT just put them on a pedestal

  1. Rattlesnake

    Romney isn’t perfect, of course. During the primaries, I harshly criticized him for being too moderate. But, the only thing that matters is that he isn’t Obama, which is kind of sad, I guess (if you look at what you criticize Obama for and what you criticize Romney for, Obama is arguably far worse).

    Also, one thing about Romneycare. The appropriate thing here is federalism. Some sort of state-run healthcare system might be appropriate for liberal Massachusetts, but that doesn’t mean it is appropriate for the whole United States. And while that doesn’t absolve Romney of wrongdoing, it could be said that he is a politician who does whatever the people want, as opposed to what he personally wants (not that that is necessary a good thing).

    Reply
    1. Atticus

      I think they are both equally bad. Both support the Drone tactics, both support Policing the world.

      My point about Romneycare was that he once supported the idea now he demonizes it because it is politically advantageous to do so. I get the “states rights” argument and I think it’s a valid one – but I don’t think Romney says that. Romney is fiscally liberal at heart I think – and I think his budget will increase the national debt more than Obama’s – even with Obamacare.

      Romney basically wants to remove Obamacare and add it to the military. Still no help when it comes to our national deficit.

      Reply
      1. Rattlesnake

        Obviously you and I disagree about whether the world should be policed, but I don’t know upon what you base your belief that Romney will be worse than Obama fiscally. Given how terrible Obama has been fiscally, that would be pretty hard to do (and his choice of Paul Ryan as running mate indicates to me that he is at least somewhat serious about fiscal responsibility), particularly with at least a Republican house.

        And another major thing is corruption; Obama’s administration is so unbelievably corrupt (Solyndra et al, various cover ups, security leaks, etc) and generally distasteful (class warfare (“the rich should pay their fair share” even though they already pay more than their fair share), gender warfare (“War on Women”), etc).

        And even you don’t agree with the interventionist foreign policy, Romney’s would almost certainly be better. Obama’s foreign policy has been atrocious, as has his handling of the distasters his foreign policy have created (the whole thing going on in Libya).

        Given all of that, I am quite amazed that you conclude that they are “equally bad.” Romney certainly isn’t that great, but Obama is just awful (and not only Obama, but also his administration and the Democrats (such as Harry Reid) in general).

        PS, sorry if I sound uncivil. I don’t mean to.

        Reply
        1. Atticus Post author

          I hear what you’re saying – I just see no evidence that Romney’s policy will be any better. It sounds like decreased social programs with increased military spending… The Obama administration has been very corrupt, but that’s a flaw of the political system on both sides so I see little evidence Romney would be any different – he’s paid for by the same corporations… Anyways, I think my overall point is who’s worse, but just that they are both bad.

          Trying to determine who’s worse is an exercise in futility because we could go on about each forever – plus Romney hasn’t had a term in office to build more ammunition.

          It’s just unfortunate that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils instead of being enthusiastic about a candidate.

          Reply
          1. Rattlesnake

            Well, you know how bad Obama is. Even if there is no evidence that Romney is going to be any better (which I would say there is, and a lot of it), why not give him a chance? I don’t see it being very likely that he is going to be worse (I know you and I disagree on this point, but shifting money away from social programs to the military is preferable (assuming there is some sort of reform) to doing nothing, in my opinion. It would be preferable to completely eliminate the social programs (or at least have that as a long-term goal while fulfilling previous obligations) while cutting spending on the military, but that is about as likely as having a candidate that you can be enthusiastic about).

            And maybe I’ll be wrong about this, but I don’t think the right is going to deify Romney to any extent, particularly the extent to which the left and the media have deified Obama. Again, even if Romney is just as bad as Obama, there will again be some level of accountability.

            Anyway, if you are just saying that both are bad without any regard to which is worse, that is something I can agree with (on some level, at least). I’m just a bit perplexed as to how someone as rational as you could have concluded that one isn’t worse than the other one based on what you said in your post. I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree here, unless you want to continue this discussion, which seems futile (there certainly isn’t anything you could say that could convince me Romney is anywhere near as bad as Obama, and you don’t seem to be changing your mind either).

            Reply
  2. Pingback: Media BIAS makes me sad « BlogTruth

  3. Pingback: Media BIAS makes me sad « BlogTruth

  4. jred21

    Drones came up in the Foreign Policy debate and I was so disappointed. It was an opportunity for Romney to sway libertarians and independents and say he would cut back on the drone war Obama is conducting in the Middle East. Instead both candidates seemed to agree with each other on this issue…

    Reply
    1. Atticus Post author

      Yeah – that part of the “debate” seemed more like a meeting between like minded friends… I can’t imagine that the public opinion is in support of Drones that much, but maybe I’m wrong.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s