Politico reports on an unnamed Democratic strategist who claims that the Obama campaign is gearing up for negative attacks against Mitt Romney. I have no idea if this source is legit. While I, like many, have often wished that Obama were more aggressive with his opponents, I am skeptical. Obama's track record doesn't inspire faith.
The Politico article references the 2004 Bush/Kerry election, I keep thinking about the 2000 Bush/Gore election. In 2000, it was unthinkable for liberals to vote Nader. It would split the liberal vote and become a de facto vote for Bush. In fact, that happened (among other things). Does that dynamic hold true any longer?
With Obama and Romney, I'm not so sure it does. How different is an Obama administration from a Romney administration? Romney's no wild-eyed Tea Party true believer. His Massachusetts health care program is very much like our current national program. He is a former businessman and a slick politician. I have infinitely more confidence in Mitt Romney than I ever did in George W Bush. And Obama has hardly been a voice for progressive policies. So if there's not much difference, how bad a result is it if Romney wins?
Let me be clear: I do not advocate voting for Mitt Romney. At all. But I think the lack of a clear distinction between Obama and Romney makes it a lot more palatable to vote for a third party candidate, specifically a Green candidate.
I am sick of the compromise of the Democrats. A majority of Americans consistently say they are in favor of single-payer health care. Polls also show that a majority of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes to have it. And yet the pathetic "public option" is just too liberal for the liberal party to accept. Instead we have a plan that, even if it implements significant improvements in the current system, is such piecemeal hash that it's easy to mock and tough to love. Democrats had the House, Senate, and Presidency. And this was the best they could do?
Voting Green becomes more and more tempting.