I am no longer persuaded by the argument that 2% less evil is a compelling argument to vote Democratic.

People can certainly reasonably differ on whether the difference is 2% or some larger number, which we obviously do. This is a pretty interesting and apropos post:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-choice-elections-context-and.html

I think you put this very nicely: “while he appears to have personal principles, he does not appear to have political principles.” That’s where I thought the Vanity Fair article was quite good–it gives a very fair overview of his business success and LDS leadership, and I think it shows that he is a very personally principled person. (They’re not my principles, mind you, but he has shown a great deal of consistency and constancy in his personal and business lives.) But as you say, constant political principles? Not so much, and that’s why most Republicans are wary.

Srsly?

I tried to laugh so I wouldn’t cry, but it didn’t work.

You have to start reading the news, CPP, painful as it is. I’ll grant that the Repubs have a worse line of talk, but as the Black Agenda Report says, Obama is the more effective evil judging by his actual record. (Indefinite detention, extrajudicial assassination, now also extended to US citizens and on paper at least to US soil, cutting Social Security and Medicare treated like a “serious” idea, right down to so help me God dropping the ball on the Do Not Call Registry.

I am no longer persuaded by the argument that 2% less evil is a compelling argument to vote Democratic. I fail to see how that might be construed as a “right-wing” point of view.

Obama is yet to show high school ability.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! Yeah, tell that to the Harvard Law Review!!

Seriously, to read this post and some of the comments, you’d think this was some fucken deranged right-wing blogge.

Obama is not at all “beholden to other interests: labor, gender parity, environmentalism, etc.” It’s true particularly for a second term. All these constituencies will see is a f..er.

Poor us.

I have a photocopy of a December, 1967 front page in a Philadelphia newspaper with a picture of Old Pops Romney (George) standing in shirtsleeves in Vietnam talking to a staff sargeant from suburban Detroit, on the cusp of the Tet Offensive and about to self-destruct HIS road to the White House with some ill-considered candor and impulsive verbalizing. It happens to be on the same page as a story about of the comedic melt-down of a reenactment of Washington crossing the Delaware River the previous day, so I show it to my American Revolution students every February for the latter reason. It should be pretty interesting this time out.