Ed. Note: Last summer, I put out a call for bloggers of different political persuasions to come on board MidLifeBloggers during this election year so that we could have a mature, reasoned, no-name-calling debate about the issues and the candidates. Mark Paxson answered the call for the Democrats. Today begins his first–and regular–take on the election from his perspective. I’m still waiting for someone from the Republican, Libertarian, Green or whatever party to come on board.
Let the Discussion Begin
by Mark Paxson of King Midget Ramblings
I came to political awareness with the end of the Carter Presidency and the rise of Reagan Republicanism. Sadly, I remember that, at the tender age of sixteen, I would have voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I think. My memory gets hazy about things that happened all those years ago. I do know, however, that very shortly after that election I became what I remain – what many would say is a liberal Democrat. What I would say, however, is that I am liberal, very much so, on social issues – I support gay marriage, am pro-choice, and oppose the death penalty. On the other hand, I consider myself to be fiscally conservative. Governments should operate within their means, balance their budgets, and not break the backs of their citizens with a confiscatory, economy-depressing level of taxes. As well, government programs should not be open-ended, every dollar should be accounted for, and the massive amounts of waste should be eliminated as much as possible.
In the presidential elections since 1980, I generally held my nose through one bad Democrat candidate after another. Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Most of these votes were of the classic “vote against” variety. The only one that wasn’t was Clinton in 1996. I held my nose with my vote for him in 1992, but four years later, I gladly overlooked his personal weaknesses and filled in the bubble next to his name. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the best President this country has seen in my lifetime.
Which leads us to the current state of affairs. In 2008, I voted for Barack Obama in both primary and general elections. Proudly because I wanted to. Now, almost four years later, although I share some of the frustrations other liberals have with his record, I will do so again. Very simply, he is an adult in a room full of children. As Republicans run against him, claiming he hasn’t done anything, I will simply say “hypocrites” in reply. Since the beginning of his term, the Republican party has made it clear their primary objective is to defeat him, regardless of the harm to the country that may result. There is nobody else on the national scene that I trust more to do the right thing, to decide responsibly, and to listen to and engage with the opposition, both at home and abroad.
Tuesday, January 3rd, after 231 debates filling the void, 41 candidates rising and falling, and billions of words printed and spoken about the Republican primary, the first votes will be cast. In the Hawkeye State, where there are more golf courses per capita than any other State, and slightly more than 100,000 voters will play their annual outsized role in the election of a President. There are so many things I could say about it, but I’ll leave it at this.
In a Presidential election where the Republicans, to win, only had to nominate a living, breathing, and thinking candidate with reasonable positions that could attract the middle-of-the-road candidates, the hard-core right wing of the party has dominated to such an extent that I now consider this election to be Obama’s to lose. The only Republican running who I think has a snowball’s chance of beating him is Romney. Unfortunately, for Republicans, the Romney who had the best chance of winning a general election was the Romney who served as Governor of Massachusetts. The one who is currently running apparently opposes everything Governor Romney did.
The rest of them? Well, it fascinates me that the family values party would even consider Newt. Perry is one giant faux pas. Bachmann is a faux pas on a smaller scale. Santorum has such extreme views he doesn’t stand a chance and is only in the top tier because neither the media nor the other candidates ever paid any attention to him while he was visiting every potential Iowa voter, baking them cookies and mowing their lawns. He has demonstrated the value of flying below the radar. The high fliers have all been shot down. Too bad he doesn’t have any resources to get past Iowa. Too bad, as well, that Huntsman never had a chance. Imagine a Republican candidate unwilling to kowtow to the extremists in the party. An election between Obama and Huntsman would have been very interesting indeed.
That’s Mark’s view; you can offer yours in the comments. If you’re interested being the Republican side of this MidLifeBloggers Election 2012 dialogue, email me at jane@midlifebloggers.com
Photo credit: macworld.com
Popularity: 2% [?]
Jane Gassner
All Top Stories 
Comments on this entry are closed.