Persuade this Uncommitted Voter

If you’re like me, you already know the candidate for whom you will vote.  You also want to do what’s reasonably within your power to help place (or keep) the right man behind the Resolute desk — but you don’t have a whole lot of interaction with uncommitted voters.

Well, here’s your chance.

A friend of mine approached me with an idea.  “I haven’t decided whom to vote for,” he said, “and I’m wondering if you might post something inviting your readers to comment and try to persuade me to vote for their guy.”  I thought it was a swell idea.  I’ll keep his identity private, but let’s call him Brother Campbell.  Brother Campbell is a Christian minister of some sort, and in the midst of a PhD program.  A bright guy, and very committed Christian — but he doesn’t spend all day reading and writing about politics.

So, what would you tell him?  How would you try to convince him to vote for your preferred candidate?  Here is Brother Campbell’s explanation — and your chance to do something more than just vote and donate:

It seems like this election is focused solely on the economy and getting America back to work.  Which candidate will be more effective at accomplishing this goal?  Selfishly, I think I would fare better under a Romney presidency, but as a Christian I feel compelled to vote for Obama because his approach seems to demonstrate greater tangible care and concern for marginalized people.  However, Romney appears to have a more compelling and convincing plan (and ability) to help the economy and get America back to work.

For each of the items below there is not a single yes or no answer.  I’d value hearing the nuanced pros and cons of each candidate’s approach.

  • Obama’s approach possesses direct concern for all people. His plan seeks to provide immediate relief to people.  Romney’s approach possess indirect concern for all people. His plan seeks to provide eventual relief to people.  Which approach is more sustainable in the long-run?
  • Obama’s approach leans more on the government to create (and sustain) jobs. Romney’s approach relies on the free market to create jobs. Should the government be more (or less) involved in creating jobs?
  • Obama seeks to protect people by regulating the market. Romney seeks to curtail market regulations. Market regulations protect people, but also make the market inefficient. 
  • Romney offers a fiscal plan with (some) details that I can at least agree or disagree with. Obama does not offer much of a fiscal plan except to keep on keeping on with what we are doing.  I understand that Romney’s plan has flaws, but what is Obama’s fiscal plan?
  • Obama seems to be unable to effectively work with Republicans. Romney seems to have been effective in working with Democrats. Romney’s potential for activity seems more promising than Obama’s likely inactivity. 
  • Romney offers some semblance of a plan/direction. Obama fails to provide a clear vision of where he will take us. I want to vote for Obama, but I would like him to give me something to vote for.  

As a side note, it’s refreshing that the two major hot button/polarizing issues, abortion and gay rights, have received minimal air time. Also, the lack of discussion about religion and politics is both noteworthy and refreshing as well.


I’m offering all of this without comment on my part.  What would you say?


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I don’t even know where to begin. The “approaches” listed for each candidate are spun in a very pro-Romney way. There’s nothing impartial at all about this blog post. They completely lack nuance, and provide a cliched look at both candidates, but especially Obama. Even the “nice things” allegedly said about Obama come across as barbed.
    Let’s go through most of them one by one and explain how faulty the reasoning is.

    “Obama’s approach possesses direct concern for all people. His plan seeks to provide immediate relief to people. Romney’s approach possess indirect concern for all people. His plan seeks to provide eventual relief to people. Which approach is more sustainable in the long-run?

    When have trickle down type approaches to the economy ever been successful? If lower taxes meant more jobs we would be swimming in jobs right now. A plan that mixes reductions in spending and increased tax revenues is certainly more sustainable in the long run. Romney has no sort of plan like that.

    “Obama’s approach leans more on the government to create (and sustain) jobs. Romney’s approach relies on the free market to create jobs. Should the government be more (or less) involved in creating jobs?”
    Both candidates have promised job creation, and there’s not a statement made anywhere by President Obama where he expresses the idea that he’s simply going to use government to create jobs. The perception is that Democrats use government to create jobs, and certainly the stimulus was an expression of that, but when the President talks about creating manufacturing jobs he certainly isn’t implying that they are going to be “government jobs.” He’s certainly talking about free markets.
    “Obama seeks to protect people by regulating the market. Romney seeks to curtail market regulations. Market regulations protect people, but also make the market inefficient. ”
    Yes, the jobs numbers have been bad, but how can one argue that the market is currently inefficient? Is is the high numbers on Wall Street? The record corporate profits? How about the billions being made by the banking industry? Let’s not forget that a complete lack of regulatory oversight got us into this mess to being with.
    “Romney offers a fiscal plan with (some) details that I can at least agree or disagree with. Obama does not offer much of a fiscal plan except to keep on keeping on with what we are doing. I understand that Romney’s plan has flaws, but what is Obama’s fiscal plan?”

    Obama released a plan yesterday, try typing the words “Obama Plan” and hitting “News” in Google Search.

    “Obama seems to be unable to effectively work with Republicans. Romney seems to have been effective in working with Democrats. Romney’s potential for activity seems more promising than Obama’s likely inactivity. ”

    This statement is just so polarizing because it only tells half the story. When a sitting Senate Majority Leader says his number one agenda is to make sure the President doesn’t get a second term it becomes difficult to get things through Congress. The other side not lining up to play ball with Obama is not necessarily the fault of the President. When Obama entered office he was more than happy to work with Republicans, it’s the GOP who chose not to work with the President. In addition, Governor Romney was a moderate who worked well with Democrats, but many of his positions back then were similar to his Democratic colleagues. Candidate Romney is something else entirely, and it’s hard to imagine a Democratic controlled Senate buying into the Tea Party nonsense he’s been forced to advocate this recent go around.

    “Romney offers some semblance of a plan/direction. Obama fails to provide a clear vision of where he will take us. I want to vote for Obama, but I would like him to give me something to vote for. ”

    Obama has given us a vision. He’s been President for four years, there’s a track record there. The President will continue to put competent Justices on the Supreme Court. He will continue to hunt down and kill terrorists. We will get out of Afghanistan just like we got out of Iraq. There will probably be immigration reform in a second term, and a continuation of looking out for the “little guy.” The President has had plenty of achievements in his first term (try looking up “achievements Obama”), made even more amazing by the fact that he’s had a road block placed in front of him nearly the entire four years.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      You can think what you like, of course, and I recognize that people sometimes pretend to be something they’re not for political purposes, but BC is one of my many liberal-leaning friends, someone who probably voted for Obama last time (although I haven’t asked) and who would like to vote for Obama again this time. BC has spent much of his life in Berkeley, and now attends an elite liberal university for a sociology PhD. So I promise I’m not astroturfing here.

      After taking a hammering in three debates for having no clear agenda for the next four years, releasing a perfunctory economic “plan” with less than two weeks before the election is hardly inspiring. It’s more reactionary than visionary, and I think the truth is that the Obama administration is floundering and adrift.

      As for the much-touted Republican intransigence in the face of Obama’s generous bipartisanship, well, see Peggy Noonan’s column from yesterday. Or look up the facts on what Mitch McConnell said and when he said it. That would be a start.

  • Tara Edelschick


    This is quite a challenge. I never write about politics, but I’m moved by the way you asked. So here are my top 10 reasons I will vote for Obama.

    1. Obamacare. Here in Massachusetts, we are entering the first year where the Romneycare is reaping the financial benefits that were anticipated. I believe the same will happen federally as well. So in addition to providing more coverage to 32 million uninsured people, it will help the federal budget in the long term.

    2. The Grand Bargain. The President, against the desires of his own party, has consistently reiterated his willingness to sign a budget that cuts discretionary spending, reforms the tax code and Social Security, and raises taxes a modest amount on the wealthiest Americans. I believe this is the best plan, and I think he’ll be able to sign one shortly after the election. (Unlike my brothers and sisters who see taxing the rich at even higher rates represents some kind of wealth redistribution, I see it as people who benefit more paying more for those benefits. For instance, if you own a lucrative business, you benefit financially proportionately more than others when the military protects your assets, when the roads make it easier for you to get your goods to the store, etc. Paying more is fair.)

    3. Veterans. My father was in the Air Force, and I care deeply about veterans and active duty men and women. He has ended the war in Iraq, is winding things down in Afghanistan, and increased the budget to take care of veterans by nearly 20%. (As a side note, I dig the work that his wife and the VP’s wife do on behalf of vets.)

    4. Education. He used stimulus money to create Race to the Top, a program that rewards states for education reforms and results. He regulated federal student aid at predatory commercial colleges when too many graduates can’t find employment.

    5. National Security. I think we are safer now than we were four years ago, and not just because of Bin Laden and the fact that we are ending two wars. He signed a new START treaty with Russia. Imposed tougher sanctions on Iran. Supported the Arab Spring without getting us entangled in battles we can’t win. Redirected military spending to 21st century realities. Increased our military presence in Asia, putting pressure on China.

    6. Regulation. Passed credit card reform. Allowed FDA to begin to regulate tobacco. Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help protect consumers from crazy bank practices.

    7. Fiscally Wise. He ended production of the F-22 (we bought 187 of them without every using one in combat). This saved more than a billion dollars. He ended the Space Shuttle program, at a billion dollars a launch. He ended the Constellation moon base program, and directed that money to go to new aero-space technology with a higher potential to be lucrative down the road. Cut Star Wars missile defense budget and re-directed some of the money toward sea-based plans.

    8. The Environment. (While I think that many wise environmental practices are good fiscal policy for everyone, I wouldn’t care that much if they weren’t. I want to leave a healthier planet to everyone, and I don’t want the poorest people in developing countries paying for our environmental mistakes.) He raised fuel efficiency standards for cars. Closed the most toxic power plants, saving billions in health care costs. Required federal agencies to come up with environmental plans. Set aside stimulus money for renewable technology.

    9. Justice. He signed an executive order to stop deporting children who were brought here illegally before they were 16 as long as they pose no criminal or security threat, were good students, and are willing to serve in the military. (This is the kind of hospitality to the foreigner that seems just to me.) Signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which means that poor Black kids don’t get different sentences for crack than wealthy, White kids get for powder Cocaine. After decades of inaction on a claim that everyone knew was legit, he finally payed damages to the Black and Native American farmers who were cheated out of loans and royalties by the government. (This seems kind of random, but it has been on my heart for twenty years.)

    10. Abortion. While you say that you are relieved that the parties haven’t addressed these hot button issues, I want to say why I will vote for Obama in part because I think abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Basically, I don’t think this is a battle we can win legally. There are plenty of times when legal measures are the only solution to evil. But I think that even if we end up overturning Roe v Wade, we are still going to have thousands of abortions every year, both legal and illegal. This is because overturning Roe v. Wade would only turn the decision back to the states, and nearly all of the states will keep it legal. And women will cross state lines to have abortions banned in their own states. We have to win the moral argument with our friends and neighbors. My friend and conservative legal scholar wrote a piece before his death that influenced me in this regard. You can check it out here:

    Finally, you are concerned that he can’t work with the Republicans, and I share that concern. But he got all of this done with a very contentious Congress (often having to fight with his own side as well). I don’t know that it will be easier in a second term, but I imagine that when his opponents don’t have to spend so much time making sure he can’t get re-elected, he’ll have an easier time with both sides of the aisle.

    I could say more about each of these points, and add points to boot. But I hope this bit helps. God bless you as you decide.

    Blessings, Tara

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      Thanks, Tara. While we vote differently, you always have my respect for the kind of thoughtfulness you show here.

  • Julie

    Thank you for asking. As a Christian whose beliefs and values span both political parties, I have to decide which issues are the most important. For me, it is the sanctity of human life. If we’re concerned about social justice and the welfare of the weak and most vulnerable, there is no one more vulnerable than unborn child. President Obama not only supports abortion, but actively promotes it, and consequently has no commitment to protecting those truly in need of protection. If we purposely and intentionally kill segments of our population, then no other issue matters… not the economy, not immigration, not the military, not energy, nothing. If he doesn’t care about the unborn, I have no reason to believe he cares about me or the nation as a whole. Additionally, if he is willing to carelessly throw away God’s most precisous gift, I would find it hard to believe he has a high regard for any principle. And that means I cannot trust him. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support him. I will be voting for Governor Romeny.

    Peace, and may God truly bless America,

  • kalim

    Said Nursi had proved the existence of God in his books.
    I want to share some part From Risalei Nur collection by Said Nursi (23th word)

    Man is such an antique work of art of Almighty God. He is a most subtle and graceful miracle of His power whom He created to manifest all his Names and their inscriptions, in the form of a miniature specimen of the universe. If the light of belief enters his being, all the meaningful inscriptions on him may be read. As one who believes, he reads them consciously, and through that relation, causes others to read them. That is to say, the dominical art in man becomes apparent through meanings like, “I am the creature and artefact of the All-Glorious Maker. I manifest His mercy and munificence.” That is, belief, which consists of being connected to the Maker, makes apparent all the works of art in man. Man’s value is in accordance with that dominical art and by virtue of being a mirror to the Eternally Besought One. In this respect insignificant man becomes God’s addressee and a guest of the Sustainer worthy of Paradise superior to all other creatures.
    However, should unbelief, which consists of the severance of the relation, enter man’s being, then all those meaningful inscriptions of the Divine Names are plunged into darkness and become illegible. For if the Maker is forgotten, the spiritual aspects which look to Him will not be comprehended, they will be as though reversed. The majority of those meaningful sublime arts and elevated inscriptions will be hidden. The remainder, those that may be seen with the eye, will be attributed to lowly causes, nature, and chance, and will become utterly devoid of value. While they are all brilliant diamonds, they become dull pieces of glass. His importance looks only to his animal, physical being. And as we said, the aim and fruit of his physical being is only to pass a brief and partial life as the most impotent, needy, and grieving of animals. Then it decays and departs. See how unbelief destroys human nature, and transforms it from diamonds into coal.

  • Br. Campbell, thank you for your seeking spirit. I hope you find the wisdom and peace to vote for who you consider the best candidate. It’s good to ask these questions and let us discuss them.

    I answered your questions one by one from my own perspective, but it got a bit long for a comment so I put it up at my own blog. Feel free to read my thoughts and reply here (or there, if you prefer, though here’s probably best!)

    In general, my vote is driven by personal experiences seeing people struggle with medical bankruptcy. I believe that Obamacare provides the best tools for addressing this problem, and while I’m far from a single-issue voter this definitely pushed me over the edge, both because Republicans still are fighting the law and because many conservatives are also fighting the spirit of the law (shared risks + burdens when life falls more heavily on one of us than the other through no particular fault of that person). That makes me want to vote Obama, though I won’t say I don’t grit my teeth at some points!

  • eS Jay 1ne

    Oh Em Gee Tara Edelschick! I thought about responding but believed it to be too laboring last night. Your post convinced me that there is no need to argue for the POTUS. I agree with you in regards to abortion. I think if we can eliminate the conditions (I believe but could be wrong that most people fear lack of support) that lead individuals to choose abortions the rate of abortions would deplete. I know individuals that have experienced an abortion and guilt carried is devastating.
    Of course, the free market is one of the best creations that lead to wealth and prosperity. We should stick very close to its principles but the realities of the ‘unseen hand’ can be extremely harsh and cold, especially “creative destruction”. I believe the U.S. should be invested in industries we are most efficient. For example, why should we be involved in growing oranges in FL (I’m from Florida therefore what I’m saying is sacrilege) when we can import them cheaper from South America (this includes the shipping)? South American countries are much more efficient in the industry due to their cheap labor. Our time and effort should go to more advanced industries that pay higher wages. We would outsource this advance industry to new markets. The new industry would require a higher educated work force so what happens to the out of work farmers in the mean time? They are living in a cold, harsh world. Government should (at least I believe that is government’s role to) step in and assist them from feeling the full brunt of “creative destruction”. Under this role, the government does create jobs but it cannot be sustained for a prolonged period; only until we are out of the clear. The POTUS has displayed, IMHO, more compassion in regards to that cold, hard reality while continuing to believe in and embrace the free market. I hope I put together a sound explanation of my support of the POTUS.

  • Gina

    Actions speak louder than words — or, in John’s formulation, “let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” President Obama talks a good game about having care and compassion for all people, but don’t just listen to his words. Look at his deeds.

    He talks about providing immediate relief, but there has been little relief of any sort in these past four years, as the unemployment rate has risen and people who desperately want jobs are unable to find them. He talks about the importance of education, but right near where I live, he deliberately blocked opportunities for children to leave their failing schools and go to more successful ones, because a crucial part of his political base opposed the idea. He talks about protecting our people, but he stood by and watched as Chris Stevens, Ty Woods, and others were killed, refusing to send help when they begged for it. All he did was have a filmmaker arrested and locked up afterwards, even after he demonstrably knew that the Bhengazi attacks were not related to the film in question.

    My humble advice would be to ignore the rhetoric, do the research, and concentrate on the actual record.

    God bless and guide you, BC.

  • D.Green

    I would argue that Barack Obama’s approach doesn’t show concern for all people and although that was pretty much apparent in the ’08 election cycle, it has been made much more apparent since he’s been president. No one who has a concern for all people diligently attempts to pit one group (or groups) of people against another group(s) in the manner in which he’s successfully been able to do. Whether it was the way in which he passed Obamacare, to business owners or those whom he and his administration has labeled “millionaires and billionaires”- those making over $200k ($250k, married), he has sought time and again to extract more money from them to pay for and justify the largesse of his ideological causes. One need only to actually look at the so-called stimulus bill of ’09 or the so-called GM bailout to see exactly what was “stimulated” and “bailed out.”

    Now one can argue that the president’s “direct concern” for all people can be seen by extending unemployment benefits, reducing work requirement for those in need of welfare, increasing the numbers of Americans on SNAP and federal disability and to a certain level, considering the economic times, this can be appreciated and congratulated. But ONLY to a certain extent because the continued increase of these numbers means that continued funding of these programs means more borrowing at higher levels of interest (in essence it works almost like a tax) to be paid for by those he’s labeled “rich.” But further, to have this many people on government rolls is an attempt to buy and secure votes (not all those who are beneficiaries, by any means, so resist the urge to label the comment as a “47%”) from a significant number of recipients. So again, this may be concern for some people, but it’s at the expense of others where his concern falls short.

    As for Romney’s economic plan… Romney’s plan isn’t indirect; I would argue that it is also direct, but in a different and sustainable manner. If he is able to put in place- through a reduction of taxation and regulations- the confidence to grow the economy, that has a direct influence upon those who have been unemployed for longer than six months. Romney continues to say that there are 23 million people not in the workforce- I think the number is higher, but if he is able to facilitate the transition of even 80% of that number back into the workforce, that not only has a direct effect on those who are now employed (and their families by extension), it actually increases the disposable income consumers use which reflects consumer confidence, which also directly helps improve the economy. I don’t think there’s a question as to which plan is more sustainable in the long term.

    “Obama’s approach leans more on the government to create (and sustain) jobs. Romney’s approach relies on the free market to create jobs. Should the government be more (or less) involved in creating jobs?”

    The simple fact of the matter is that government doesn’t create jobs. Government, through implementing or eliminating legislation, regulation, taxation and other disincentives or incentives creates an environment in which people and businesses either flourish or not. Whatever government does in “creating jobs” it first must take money from the private sector to do it. Again, this is done through taxation, printing money or excessive borrowing (which has to be repaid in addition to interest). As we can see from France, Spain, Greece and my home state of California, this isn’t economically viable because of the inevitability of shrinking resources (private sector) to fund an ever-growing government class and its services. As such we know it isn’t sustainable because to sustain government spending and growth, the government has to continue to raise taxes (which stifles production), print money which devalues the dollar and adds to inflation or borrow money at higher and higher interest rates (and in our case, it’s due to a lowered credit rating because of our rapidly growing debt).

    As a point of note, look at what happens when the government attempts to pick winners and losers by manipulating the economy: Solyndra (and roughly 30 other green job companies), the high price of gas, GM (still owes billions and will have to declare bankruptcy again) and Obamacare. Look at the cost of premiums that have gone up since legislation was passed and it was erroneously ruled to be constitutional by the SCOTUS.

    I would much rather have Romney’s plan of reducing taxation that spurs productivity (and in the case of reducing cap gain taxes) spurs investment. I am also in favor of his plans to reduce regulations that stifle and prevent employment. Under Obama’s administration, the number of regulations as found in the Code of Federal Regulations has increased to over 11,000; the cost of these added regulations has been estimated to be roughly $488 billion. Governmental influence as the primary conduit of economic growth doesn’t work. It’s been tried one too many times, in too many countries with too many notable and consistent failures.
    Government can be used as ‘a’ tool to spur the economy, but not as ‘the’ tool.
    Furthermore, look at the taxes that will hit American families in 2013/14 as a direct result of Obamacare and look at the taxes that will hit all Americans on Jan.1, 2013 if Congress doesn’t pass a constructive tax plan.

    This isn’t to say that we should have no regulations at all. To do so would be absurd. But we need to reduce the regulations that have prevented business growth and expansion (such as offshore oil drilling) and keep in place ones that will have a detrimental effect on the personal lives and wallets of working Americans.

    “Romney offers a fiscal plan with (some) details that I can at least agree or disagree with. Obama does not offer much of a fiscal plan except to keep on keeping on with what we are doing. I understand that Romney’s plan has flaws, but what is Obama’s fiscal plan?”

    Though it is true that Romney’s plan is vague at times, I think we can say it’s much more transparent than was the President’s when he ran in ’08 and the one he is attempting to offer now. Right now, Romney has a five-point plan (I hate numerically pointed plans- they’re restrictive and sound silly) that consists of energy independence, refining our trade practices, improving education, reducing the debt and deficits and finally to support small businesses. Again, though vague, it sounds good and is understandable. The details I’m sure will be forthcoming once he gets elected and is able to sit down with appointed economic advisors to specifically pinpoint where changes and improvements can be made. I’d also bet that once he gets elected these five points will be clarified further and possibly reformulated, because as the president found out when he promised an end to Guantanamo, ending the wars, etc., there’s a huge difference between running for president and being president.

    As I stated above, I’m in favor of reducing taxes and reforming the tax code. I’m also in favor of Romney’s plan to cut spending and reduce the size of government. I favor the fact that he knows through extensive research and practical experience what needs to be done to make profits and create jobs.

    The president’s plan is no plan. What he has tried has not been successful. He’s attempted to pass a jobs bill that his own party scoffed at. He’s presided over 43 months of unemployment above 8% (many think it’s still above 8% based on questionable data accumulation/presentation by the recently released BLS jobs report), there are more than 46 million Americans receiving food stamps, close to 9 million receiving federal disability, 56 million receiving social security, median wealth of American families has dropped, food prices have increased, energy prices have “necessarily skyrocketed,” the debt has increased 6 trillion, he’s had at least a trillion-dollar deficit every year he’s been in office, the GDP is 1.7% (it’s marked at 2% but will be reduced as it was last quarter)… and his plan is…to increase taxes so people can pay their “fair share” and to guarantee birth control to women. What kind of plan is this? And why based off of this information, would anyone cast a vote to re-elect President Obama with an economic record as bad as this?

    “Obama seems to be unable to effectively work with Republicans. Romney seems to have been effective in working with Democrats. Romney’s potential for activity seems more promising than Obama’s likely inactivity.”

    This is so self-evident there’s no need to add anything to it.

    “Romney offers some semblance of a plan/direction. Obama fails to provide a clear vision of where he will take us. I want to vote for Obama, but I would like him to give me something to vote for. ”

    Unfortunately, we’ve seen what the president’s vision is and he wants to continue it. He knows his record is bad, which is why he doesn’t tout his “achievements” as a foundation for his campaign. His supporters know his record is bad which is why demonizing Romney has become their action plan to get the president re-elected. Why would anyone want to vote for Obama considering his job performance? He may be a nice guy, but niceness or coolness isn’t something one can put on a resume or CV as an attribute for qualification. Barack Obama has proven that he was simply unprepared to be president and his attempts at resurrecting the economy since he’s been elected proves he’s illiterate when it comes to understanding free-market principles and unqualified to be re-elected.

    He said himself that if he didn’t turn the economy around, it would be a one term proposition. Americans can only hope for as much.

    None of this takes into consideration foreign policy and the embarrassment to the President his positions are to himself and the American people.

    • Jeremy Forbing

      To take President Obama to task for setting groups of people against each other while endorsing a Republican candidate is like criticizing Ford Motor Company for a lack of technical innovation while driving a horse and buggy.

  • Jeremy Forbing

    Rather than adding to the heady mix of the rational and the biased these comments comprise, I submit that my many of my thoughts on the election are summarized in this video (minus the parts about the zombie apocalypse):

    For all its absurdity, embedded in this video is a lot of truth.

  • Frank

    Obama has failed the last four years and will continue to fail if our country is dumb enough to reelect him.

    • Jeremy Forbing

      Failed at what?

  • Jeremy Forbing

    Actually, a very convincing argument for the President, free of partisanship or excessive zeal, is provided by Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of the former President) in her endorsement here:

    (The video I posted before is a lot more fun, though.)

  • Bobby B.

    If Obama is all that good, let’s see if he will run in 2016 if he loses this election.

  • Tim, I’d love to hear what Brother Campbell decided, and what finally pushed him one way or the other.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      I’ll inquire.

      • Timothy Dalrymple

        Brother Campbell elected to vote for Obama, by the way. Here’s what he wrote:

        “I was very impressed and encouraged by the balanced responses (most of) your readers provided. Their arguments reflect many of the factors I was weighing.

        In the end, I voted for Obama mainly because I have a lower level of trust for Romney and I value more of the ideals that Obama endorses. My final decision was not easy and I wouldn’t be devastated if Romney wins, but I think I would prefer living in a nation that is governed by Obama and having him represent us on the world stage.

        Alas, my wife voted for Romney, and when I asked my four year old son who he’d vote for, he replied without hesitation, “Mitt Romney”, because he likes him…”