Thursday, October 25, 2012

For the folks who insist on seeing major differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. . .

. . . and who insist that those of us who think they are pretty much the same are only pursuing a "third party strategy" of equivalence. . .

. . . this editorial cartoon in today's News Journal suggests that our meme might be catching on:


Dana Garrett said...

I believe that your claim that there are not big differences between Obama and Romney is both true and misleading. While their is substantial *close* agreement between them, the slight differences between them can make a big, possibly even critical, difference in people's lives. For example, voucherizing Medicare would cause irreparable harm to many people.

Steve Newton said...


I am not blind to differences in some policy areas.

But every person, regardless of party or ideology, has their own list of prioritized reasons to support or oppose, discriminate between or lump together candidates.

Just as I don't think Barack Obama ever seriously thought he could achieve single-payer health care or even negotiated drug prices, but held those out from time to time in his career to win votes, I don't think that Mitt Romney seriously believes he can ever voucherize Medicare--it's red meat for the base. It is rhetoric rather than reality.

That's point one.

Point two is this: MY personal list for president considers foreign policy, military intervention, and US-sponsored human rights violations around the world to be one of my highest priorities. With respect to those I see little or NO difference between Obama and Romney.

If you rate saving Medicare as a higher value for selecting a president, you are not going to see it that way, obviously. And that's OK.

But please remember that it was Barack Obama who cut Medicare by $750 billion (I admit the GOPers would have liked more) and it was John Carney I listened to at UD last week say (I paraphrase but very closely) "to pay for the ACA we're going to have to pay providers less."

Continually paying doctors less is not the way to get high quality health care.

anonone said...


If you consider women's health issues as human rights and civil liberties issues (as I think they are), then there is a tremendous difference between Obama and Romney. Also, teh gays.

Still, I am voting Green this year.


Steve Newton said...

So despite the fact that you rejected both candidates (as I did), somehow my point is invalid?

Man, you really have a case of the ass, don't you?

By the way, on abortion rights and marriage equality I'm fine with Gary Johnson. His support of marriage equality as a constitutional right is about, what, five times better than Obama's opportunistic but hollow posturing?

Ironically, however, we do have this in agreement: despite my complete lack of use for her domestic policies, Jill Stein would be my second choice, because at least she'd follow a de-militarized foreign policy, restore civil liberties, and cut defense spending.

Dana Garrett said...

I certainly agree that the differences between Obama and Romney on foreign and military policy are so marginal as to be invisible. But I do think that domestic issues, particularly pocket book issues for the middle class and poor, are paramount. About that the albet slight but real differences between Obama and Romney are significant for millions of people.

Steve Newton said...

And that, Dana, is where we part company--albeit amicably.

I can't bring myself to choose one warmonger over another based on better domestic policies. Seems to be like getting bribed to ignored Pakistani children being shredded by our drones.

And since, inside Delaware, my vote won't matter anyway (Obama will win in a walk), a vote to open up the political system is hardly going affect Medicare or whatever this time around.

But it might provide some more alternatives in four years.

Wonder how many more brown people will be dead by then who'd have been alive if Gary Johnson were actually elected President?