So, why is Perry going to vote for President Obama again?

Perry attempted to use sarcasm in his complaints about President Obama on his site:


A Progressive’s lament

If we were to elect a Republican President in 2012, here is what we would get:

  • war being waged simultaneously on three fronts
  • a president who tells Congress he has war powers and does not need to seek their approval
  • a failure to investigate or prosecute Bush/Cheney administration officials for torture or war crimes
  • a gutted health care reform bill with no public option
  • a failure to provide relief for homeowners facing foreclosure
  • a president who drags his feet about leaving Afghanistan even after we got Bin Laden (Kudos on that, sir, well done. But it will be ancient history by November 2012. People will vote on the economy.)
  • a president who fails to tax the rich, and whom people no longer trust to defend Social Security and Medicare.

[h/t Janet Rhodes @ FDL]

But wait, this is only 2011!!! And where’s the gap to be bridged?

Perry’s complaints about President Obama’s policies are interesting, but what do they actually mean. He wrote, in a comment on this poor site:

I think what you are seeing is Obama moving to the Right in preparation for the November 2012 election. I fear that if he does not do that, he will not be reelected, which will be a real disaster for this country. We would then be ruled by characters who think and behave just like some of those on this very blog who constantly viciously attack their enemies and who don’t need facts to generate their positions. Their thinking and behavior mimics their leaders almost perfectly, make no mistake about that.

Until November 2012, Progressives like myself will find ourselves more and more angry with Obama, but we will vote for him anyway against any Repub who gets nominated to run against him. This is what happens when a significant minority of the country moves to the far right extreme, with Fox, Rush, the Koch Brothers, and all like them parading in support with tons of money, yelling and screaming and lying 24/7!!!

Naturally, I responded:

An interesting statement: you have just said that either President Obama is a liar, lying about what he believes and even governing in a manner in which he doesn’t believe, all to get re-elected, or that he really is far more conservative that you had thought, but you’ll vote for him anyway, even though you disagree with his positions, because he is nominally a Democrat.

Perry then replied:

I am saying that Obama is starting to focus on policies more to the center. Most politicians shift focus as they take into account the desires of their constituents. This has nothing to do with either lying or being far more conservative, although Obama is not the leftist extremists that you Repubs like to allege.

Yet, four days after that exchange, the esteemed host of Bridging the Gap wrote an article which says, in effect, that President Obama’s policies are essentially indistinguishable from those of any of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

Why, I have to wonder, does Perry spend so much effort defending President Obama and his positions, and criticizing the GOP, if he finds our 44th President’s policies to be almost indistinguishable from what Sarah Palin would do? Why did he say, explicitly, that he will vote for President Obama 16½ months from now — yes, the time really is getting that short — when he disapproves of him so strongly?

It’s always possible that those peeved progressives will find a primary challenger for President Obama. If so, judging by Perry’s comments, he’d be looking to support that progressive challenger, right? :)

One of us doesn’t think that will happen.

And here’s hoping that the late President Harry Truman was right when he said, “If you give the people a choice between a watered-down Republican and a Republican, they will choose the real thing every time.”

10 Comments

  1. Dana, your problem is that you’re actually trying to make sense out of Perry. This is, as is more and more evident, virtually impossible as Herr Fossil continues to delve deeper into incoherence.

  2. Pingback: So, why is Perry going to vote for President Obama again? « Common … | Obama Biden 2012

  3. The “incoherence” exists in the American political dialogue, Obama included, characteristic of a nation in decline which has no idea which way to turn.

    In 2012, my vote will go to the person who exhibits significant insight into our national dilemma and expresses a redemptive vision for our future.

    This must include correcting our dysfunctional Congress and SCOTUS. If you have not yet detected their dysfunction, then you need first to look inwards at your own dysfunction.

    I am trying to be optimistic at a time when I find optimism to be very difficult to come by.

  4. [sigh] The Congress reflects the will of the public, so Perry calls it “dysfunctional.” The Supreme Court rules that the First Amendment means what it says, rules in favor of freedom of speech, so perry calls it “dysfunctional.” And if we don’t see them as dysfunctional, then we, too, are dysfunctional.

    I wonder just how Perry intends to bridge the gap when he sees his political opponents as not just wrong, but dysfunctional?

  5. I wonder just how Perry intends to bridge the gap when he sees his political opponents as not just wrong, but dysfunctional?

    Precisely. Herr Fossil is a perfect example of a contemporary “progressive” in that “bridging the gap” actually means “agreeing with my POV.” Only conservatives/GOP must “bridge the gap” — by crossing the entire chasm to get to the other side. There’s no meeting halfway. This is exactly akin to desiring a “new civility,” where only those on the Right are expected to “tone it down.” “Progressives” can continue to indulge in name-calling and thinly-veiled threats because they do so for the “greater good.”

  6. In 2012, my vote will go to the person who exhibits significant insight into our national dilemma and expresses a redemptive vision for our future.

    Translation: Whoever promises to increase spending and raise taxes the most.

  7. Pingback: Think he’d do it? And would the Democrats approve? « Common Sense Political Thought

  8. “Precisely. Herr Fossil is a perfect example of a contemporary “progressive” in that “bridging the gap” actually means “agreeing with my POV.” Only conservatives/GOP must “bridge the gap” — by crossing the entire chasm to get to the other side. There’s no meeting halfway. This is exactly akin to desiring a “new civility,” where only those on the Right are expected to “tone it down.” “Progressives” can continue to indulge in name-calling and thinly-veiled threats because they do so for the “greater good.””

    On the contrary, it is the Repubs who do not wish to negotiate, except on their own terms. For example, they will not have revenue increases put on the table. And the spending cuts are to focus on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. What ever happened to the idea of shared burden?

  9. On the contrary, it is the Repubs who do not wish to negotiate, except on their own terms. For example, they will not have revenue increases put on the table. And the spending cuts are to focus on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. What ever happened to the idea of shared burden?

    Is that like how the Democrats “negotiated” on healthcare,among other items, Herr Fossil? Try again.

    As I said, the title of your pathetic blog is a sad joke.

  10. they will not have revenue increases put on the table.

    Of all the stupid propaganda you’ve put out, Perry, that has to be among the stupidest and propagandtastic. Tax increases are not revenue increases, plain and simple. Sometimes tax decreases increase revenue and sometimes tax increases decrease revenue.

    So, Perry, stop with your arrogantly ignorantly stupid hyper-left-wing propaganda and try telling the truth for once.

Comments are closed.