Sunday Alternate Reality Report

Mitt Romney was a good candidate, whereas Barack Obama’s campaign was “mean,” “vindictive,” “contemptuous,” and “superficial.” Take, for example, that emphasis Obama placed on totally “irrelevant” issues such as abortion:

Mitt Romney wasn’t a bad candidate. He ran a fairly strong race. He made a few errors. And he made many good moves. Certainly he was adequate. And he was probably the strongest Republican candidate among the primary field of contenders. That is, he was the best man available to run against Barack Obama. And he did a pretty good job.

Obama on the other hand, was a horrible candidate. He was mean and vindictive. He was contemptuous and superficial. He ran on irrelevancies like abortion and a fictitious Republican war against women. He didn’t give his supporters any reason to feel good about themselves. Instead, he used class warfare to stir them to hatred of their countrymen.

Yet Obama won. And Romney lost.

Yet, Obama won. Yet. Yet. YET.

Go figure, right?

ALTERNATE REALITY swamp, dead ahead!

It’s not “yet,” it’s “because.” Obama won BECAUSE he understands that abortion is a vital health issue for women, and he takes women’s health issues seriously. Republicans don’t. That’s WHY they lost (well, one of the reasons why).

Caroline, let me explain something to you. It’s irrelevant that you believe abortion is an irrelevancy and the Republican war on women fictitious. You may think (obviously, you do) that abortion is a political “irrelevancy” and that the Republican war on women is fictitious. Most women in this country do not agree. That’s why 55% of female voters pulled the lever or pressed the button for Barack Obama. That’s why every single female Democratic incumbent in the U.S. Senate was reelected. That’s why five Republican women lost their first-time bids for election to the U.S. Senate, and it’s why four Democratic women won theirs.

But by all means, Caroline, you go right on believing that abortion is an “irrelevancy” and the Republican war on women is “fictitious.” You go right on supporting and talking up Republican candidates who think so, too. By all means, please, stay in that alternate reality you’ve constructed for yourself. That will work real well for me, for Democrats, liberals, progressives. and women’s health advocates all over this country.

This post was read 143 times.

About author View all posts

Kathy Kattenburg

15 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Ms. Glick’s shrill screed, “A Time For Courage and Action,” pontificated on the imminent failure of president Obama’s foreign and domestic policies and our country’s imminent decline as a world leader because of his poor and misguided leadership. She laments ad nauseam on our country’s lost opportunity, when Romney suffered a surprising defeat at the polls this past Tuesday. Surprising to Republicans, that is. What Ms. Glick fails to internalize is that Romney’s defeat was not a “massive loss” at all, but rather a massive repudiation of the world view held by hard right, religious and conservative, extremist Republicans.

    In this country, women voters shocked Romney and company by declaring loudly that they valued their hard won right to abortion and their access to contraceptives. Women were not prepared to yield their individual destinies to a domineering government. Women felt perfectly able to manage their bodies and their reproductive rights themselves, thank you. Was the Republican abortion platform a “war on women?” You bet your sweet bippy it was. Telling women, and voters in general, during the closing days of the election that abortion wasn’t really an issue was an exercise in trying to share the Republican Kool-Aid with as many female voters as possible.

    Minorities and Hispanics shocked Romney and company as well. Why Republicans should have been surprised is a surprise in itself. Just because Republicans wanted to frog march illegal immigrants out of the country, or just because Republicans wanted to throw children of immigrants out of public schools, or just because Republicans wanted to check identity papers for anyone that “looked the part,” why should Hispanics or minorities be afraid of the Republican party? For the benefit of Republicans, the reason is that your party was advocating an aggressive and punitive war on immigrants of all stripes, as well as women. Are Republicans so disconnected from reality and common sense that they failed to see this? Well, the answer is, yes they were.

    Let’s also not forget that Romney really failed to help his own candidacy. Never have I seen a presidential candidate so diificult to understand. It was a fool’s quest to actually determine what Mr. Romney would do as president. He managed to slide down the political scale starting as a hard right conservative, to finally agreeing with many of president Obama’s policies by the end of the third debate. And, by the way, there was never any detail to support his many wonderous policy positions. It was an impressive performance. A pity it was so, so…diffuse. There was no clarity, there was no terra firma, there was only wisps of smoke and no real substance.

    So, in hindsight, voters particularly those of some well defined demographics, rejected Romney because of his party’s position on the issues and because Romney stood for nothing that could be determined. He was a Republican candidate that had a difficult time in being anything but lukewarm to Republicans themselves. In fact, it might not stretch reality too far by saying that many of Romney’s votes were anti-Obama votes. You see, one of the never mentioned aspects of this latest presidential election was the underlying racism that motivated many Republican voters.

    Why Ms. Glick becomes so agitated about our country’s foreign policy is a puzzle. Because, in the final analysis, Romney all but embraced all of Obama’s foreign policy positions on stage in their last debate. It was a heart warming event, sarcasm acknowledged, to witness. So, if Mr. Romney agrees with Mr. Obama then how can our country’s foreign policies be doomed to such catostrophic failure as Ms. Glick claims? If Romney is for it, it must be good, hmm?

    The fact is Ms. Glick that Obama won the election because he represented common sense, truth and fairness. Obama seeks to minimize war, not pursue it. Even Israel itself has not rationalized that an attack on Iran makes sense. Several senior Israelis question the liklihood of military success if Iran is attacked. Israel also knows that the U.S. will stand with Israel because he has stated that policy publically. Your dire visions of the future aside, you will have this country at the side of your country despite your fears. Your entire commentary is consistent with the rhetoric of Republicans in the U.S. How Obama as president dooms our country to immenent failure and utter catastrophe. You walk in the same verbal footsteps of our former Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice of “mushroom cloud” fame. You, and the rest of the world, know where that got our country, don’t you?

    Good luck with your new book, Ms. Glick. And, no thank you. I doubt my reading plans for the future will find time for it. I’m sure you understand.

    • “The fact is Ms. Glick that Obama won the election because he represented common sense, truth and fairness. Obama seeks to minimize war, not pursue it.”

      Both these statements are every bit as fallacious and delusional as the funnier bits that the Republicans have been consoling themselves with.

      Don’t make the mistake that this country as a whole actually wanted another Obama term. It is only a matter of the alternative being much less acceptable.

      • Well, it is clear with respect to military engagements, that Obama displays more common sense than one sees with Republicans. Had we a Republican president, he would have had his hands full trying to decide if he would intervene in Pakistan, Iran or Syria. Cetainly, Senators McCain and Graham have been busy clamoring to put American boots on the ground somewhere, anywhere. Obama exhibits much better self control and wisdom and uses our military resources in a more considered manner, therefore avoiding costly military blunders that a president like Bush was so prone to make and did. Hence, common sense.

        The country voted for Obama therefore they wanted him. The fact is that Romney, the alternative, was probably another iteration of Bush but scarier. His foreign advisors were another batch of neocons ala Bush. In fact, many of them served the prior Bush administration and left us with at least two foreign policy blunders of epic proportion. Obama represented some degree of certainty about where he stood on the issues. Not so with Romney, the presidential candidate with no discernable position on any issue. The clearest issue the Republican party could muster was telling women that they should not have access to abortions or contraceptives.

        Obama was indeed the clearest and sanest option to lead our country. When you look back at the pathetic list of Republican candidates for president it really should have been no contest. You have to know that Republicans are scrapping the very bottom of the barrel when Newt Gingrich has a podium on the debate stage. For relatively informed people, Obama was the much preferable candidate without question.

        • “The country voted for Obama therefore they wanted him.”

          I’m telling you again that this isn’t so. You don’t throw yourself to the ground when avoiding a projectile because you love the ground and want to beat yourself against it.

          Most of us, myself included, didn’t even bother to vote– because there was nothing in it for us. “Nobody” was the winner of the election once again.

          • So, from your point of view, the election of Obama was essentially serendipity? It matters naught who gets elected? With all due respect, I disagree. Your contention is that it would not matter which man, Romney or Obama, was elected. In the end, you feel it is inconsequential to the country. From my point of view, I see a clarity that you do not. I see stark differences that matter to me to include:

            (1) If Romney was elected Obamcare would die a rapid death. In my opinion, everyone in this country deserves access to healthcare. We can argue endlessly about the detail of Obamacare, the positives and the negatives but all citizens should be able to get affordable heathcare coverage. Nor should an insurance company be able to cancel someone’s health care policy when they become ill because they had a wart when they were five years old. The Republican “Emergency Room” option doesn’t cut it. It is nonsense as a valid option for people. Not does “Get sick, just die.” Obama clearly is the preferred option to me.

            (2) If Romney were elected it would make the election process an utter farce. How can a serious candidate for the high office of president refuse to reveal personal details that most presidential candidates have revealed previously? How can a serious candidate for president lack sufficient convictions to policy issues to actually maintain a consistent position on those issues? Romney changed policy positions so often that his positional changes were tantamount to outright lying. Romney was a constantly changing puzzle who lacked the gravitas and character to be president. I understand that presidents in office lie when necessary but Romney attained an entirely new level of deceit and he wasn’t even in office.

            (3) Romney, and Republicans in general, seem to have an affinity for jumping into military confrontations whenever the opportunity presents itself. Senators McCain and Graham have this inclination for overt military action most prominently. Our previous president Bush had a bad case of it as well. Bush was notable for breaking the country’s financial back as well by starting two military adventures seen as worthless fool’s quests. Hence, the reason our country is currently burdened with our many budget woes. I think Obama is a much preferred commander in chief. You show our military you value them by not sending them into nonsensical adventures or sending them into harm’s way at a whim. You show you value the military by carefully weighing each situation and only using the military, boots on the ground, when it is unacoidable and the situation presents a grave threat to our country’s interests. Obama has shown great instincts as a commander in chief.

            Those are but a few reasons why voting is important, particularly in this last election, and why everyone should exercise their right to do so. If you don’t vote, then do you really have any reason to complain about what happens?

  • Dear Ms Kattenburg,

    My comment will refer only to the syntax of your post (something which makes many posts hard to read, and therefore hard to take seriously).

    You quote someone saying “Yet Obama won.” For this locution you propose to substitute “Obama won because . . .” Rather, you would have been better-advised to have written, “as a result,” not “yet.”

  • You evidently object to “Yet, Obama won. Yet. Yet. YET.”

    Kathy simply expressed her incredulity by echoing the writer’s own words as if she found them unbelievable and needed to make sure she heard/read correctly. Pretty standard when you hear something that’s hard to believe.

    And it’s not a question of syntax but of rhetoric.

    • No, it is her following sentence, steelweed: “It’s not ‘yet,’ it’s ‘because’; if I then put the word, as indicated where there is a ‘yet,’ I get the sentence “Because Obama won.”

      A break in the sense of the passage.

      It’s not ‘yet’, it’s “As a result

  • Kathy – I agree with you. Most of the GOP are living in a Bizarro world where up is down, black is white and bad is good. They thrive on lies, half-truths and false narratives like “Obama went on an apology tour in the Middle East” (really, show me one transcript of a speech where he apologized) or “Obama raised our taxes” (no, actually dumb fucks, most Americans pay lower taxes under Obama than under Bush). They really don’t know what the hell they are talking about. As for the commenter upthread that thinks not voting is helpful, all I can say is you better not bitch, cause if you don’t vote, you aren’t entitled to gripe, so STFU!!

    • 1st Amendment rights are not, and should not be, predicated on participation in our democracy by voting.

      It drives me crazy when people say that everyone should vote. Vote if you have an opinion, preferably a well-informed one, and you want to vote. Not voting is as much of a political act as voting is. There’s nothing wrong with not voting, whether it’ll have an effect or not. (Not to mention – it potentially makes my vote more powerful).

      …Oh, and of course politicians lie about their opponents. Rather than not knowing what they’re talking about, they say what they think they will get them votes. What matters to them is power, not actual truth. (By which I mean that you’re giving them too much credit by assuming that they’re merely uninformed).

      • None of the above is the winner of just about every election in the USA in my lifetime.

        Sometimes I wish they’d heed the people’s clearly expressed preference and let none of the above assume office.

    • I doubt that’s the case. I rather suspect most GOP look at that bizarro world and wonder whether why it is that they’re shackled to those folks and whether they realize how much long-term destruction is inherent in their stream of consciousness, extrovert, talk it out into the void, self-therapy. In short, they live in a world much like the world that most Dems live in, actually, only the Dems are looking at a goodly chunk of the discourse that happens in places like here.

Leave a Reply