Why I'm voting for Obama

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

I thought it was interesting that Emerson Bolen plans to vote against Obama primarily because of state issues and what he feels the Democrats have done to the state of Illinois [Why I'm voting straight Republican, Viewpoints, June 20].

Here's why I plan on voting for Mr. Obama:

For the past three years, the Republican leadership has expressly said their No. 1 goal is to limit Obama to one term, not to advance the interests of our country. While the leadership has preached "jobs, jobs, jobs," the legislation they have advanced has been more tax cuts for the rich and various forms of restrictions on abortions. Therefore, the Republicans have proved themselves unfit to govern (as if the record from 2001-09 isn't enough) and do not deserve another chance.

As for Mr. Romney, he is a weathervane. Rather than pursuing what he thinks are the correct policies and stands on issues, he simply reflects whatever his constituency desires. This, in part, reflects his background as a businessman, which Mr. Bolen touts as a reason to support him. Any good businessperson reacts to what the market tells him or her. That's because the purpose of business is to make money. But government isn't a business, nor should it be compared to one. A good example of Mr. Romney's lack of leadership is his handling of the foreign policy spokesperson, Richard Grinnell, who happened to be gay. By all accounts, Mr. Grinnell was well-versed in foreign policy, but once the Republican base found out about him, Grinnell was gone faster than a job at a Bain-owned company. Didn't matter that Romney apparently thought he was the best man for the job

So what do we take from the Grinnell episode? That Romney can be pushed around and doesn't have the guts to stand by his decisions. Not the sort of person I want for president.

You can have legitimate policy differences with Mr. Obama, but what the President has faced from Republicans the past three years has not been legitimate policy differences. It has been a concerted effort to deny him any help in trying to pull this country out of an economic position that was largely the Republicans' making. Perhaps Republicans are ashamed of themselves for 2001-09. They certainly won't talk about it, so something about those years has them spooked.

As for Romney, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Bill Heineke
River Forest

Reader Comments

45 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy


Posted: July 13th, 2012 6:14 PM

I agree with my doppleganger, Daniel. We had a bad experience opposing the last referendum. We no longer talk to some people we used to be friends with (by their choice) because they thought we wanted to deprive their kids of a quality education. After that, we've kept our opinions to ourselves. Religion and politics ...

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 4:54 PM

@Dad from OPRF. I am sorry that you have received personal attacks for expressing your views. I guess I would like to believe that as long as one remains civil and does not engage in ad hominem attacks themselves, they will not be the target of personal attacks. And I think the virtue of identifying ourselves on these boards is that it makes for more civil discourse. As to whether you are a left or right leaning person, I have no idea. I have no way of reliably correlating your posts with others on this board using the same or similar handle, or using a dissimilar handle, for that matter. The optimal solution might be for WJ to register posters so that once handle is established, no one else will be able to use it. And perhaps the WJ can know the identity of the posters, even if the identity is not made public.

Dad from OPRF  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 12:30 PM

@ Daniel. I commend you for your use of FB yet my experience here with my real name has been problematic for me and my kids. You probably agree that I am not a left leaning person and sometimes my views have received personal attacks in the real world. Disgruntle officials to be exact. That's OK for me, but when my kids, wife and siblings need to defend me...that's a bridge to far. OPRF is a great community with too many closed minds.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 11:35 AM

How about using your actual names? For one thing, there are probably 3,000 OPRF dads in this community. I was one myself until a few weeks ago. For another thing, handles like that can easily cause confusion about who you are talking to -- as has occured here. For a third thing -- though it has not occured to my knowledge with any of the OPRF Dads -- the use of handles fosters incivility and nastiness.

OPRFDad (THE Real One)  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 11:16 AM

Dad from OPRF, I accept your apology. Had you been a more frequent poster over the last months, you clearly would have seen me. I take some solace in now knowing that you weren't trying to rip off my handle to make me look bad - in fact, some of your comments are insightful.

OPRF Dad (the Real One)  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 11:07 AM

OPRFDad you just have not paid attention. No use arguing with a thief...I am now "Dad from OPRF"


Posted: July 13th, 2012 11:07 AM

Hmmmn, something to think about.


Posted: July 13th, 2012 11:01 AM

How about one being oprf daddy?


Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:58 AM

Ditto - Interesting I haven't seen you post in the last 7 months.

OPRF Dad (the Real One)  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:57 AM

Been OPRF Dad for years here.


Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:56 AM

OPRF SPACE Dad, I am the real one. Get a new handle.

OPRF Dad (The Real One)  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:54 AM

@ Tom...someone stole my handle!!! OPRFDad is not OPRF Dad.

OP Resident # 545 from Oak Park  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:51 AM

Tom from RF, I respectfully disagree. Free riders were & are not a significant issue. The problem w/pre-ACA HC paradigm is, as with many things, too much govt interference w/doctor-patient at all levels. The problem started w/post WW2 wage & price controls & got worse as states & the FED over-regulated insurance co's, & trial lawyers discovered the pot o'gold at the end of the malpractice rainbow. Many market-based solutions are out there, all much better than the ACA power grab.


Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:49 AM

Tom, that's why we have community hospitals - they provide free care in catastrophic cases. Getting the 20-40 male crowd into the mix does one thing: it assures the insurance company risk pools are severly diverse to spread their risk. It also assures those poor saps who don't otherwise want coverage are forced to purchase it to subsidize the aging population and profits of insurance companies. If Obama wanted single payor, he should have enacted it. Instead, we are stuck with a hybrid $ suck.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:29 AM

Dad - The problem with the pre-ACA healthcare paradigm was free riders. These are people, mostly males between 20 and 40 who are not insured. While they consume little healthcare normally, and thus would be net payers to the risk pool, when they actually need healthcare, their needs are usually catastrophic. If you amended HIPPA as you suggest to require insurers to cover pre-existing injuries, these free riders would simply wait until they got ill to become insured. It doesn't work.


Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:09 AM

thinking, states will opt in because they eventually only have to pay 10% of the Medicaid expansion costs. Sounds like the brick pavers, doesn't it? Well, if we spend X, the Feds will "give" us Y. Problem is, where are the Feds getting the money. Ahh, yes, tax those horrible working people. The law could have been alleviated and the same result could have been achieved through a simple amendment to HIPAA changing the pre-existing condition rules.


Posted: July 13th, 2012 10:07 AM

The ACA is not a good law, nor does it achieve what it nominally is intended to. Specifically, it is supposed to provide coverage to everyone - it does not. Further, it hefts on the American public a cost of over a trillion additional dollars, and that's w/o Medicaid expansion. If you think your taxes won't go up, that may be true at a federal level, but not so at a state level. Any state implementing Medicaid expansion will have to pay for it, and it will be expensive. BUT, much like OP (cont

Brian from Oak Park  

Posted: July 13th, 2012 9:15 AM

Frank, I wish the left would resist its misleading diatribe against "millionaires and billionaires". There is nothing further from the truth. Obama's tax strategy is aimed at individuals making $200K or more and families making $250K. The "Millionaires and billionaires" argument is a farce, as is the 1% ruse. With the cost of college at over $200,000 and no cushy tax-payer funded pension, most families making $250K are a bit stretched in high cost areas like NY, DC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc.


Posted: July 9th, 2012 2:31 PM

So Dan - The answer to your question is NO. Not intended as such. The Supreme Court has changed all that w/the Obamacare ruling & by doing so has compromised the Constitution. Sooner or later the most ardent of liberals will feel the over reach of government as it mandates & taxes beyond your wildest dreams. That's why a vote for Obama is a vote against yourself. Correction in previous post - country not county though it applies.


Posted: July 9th, 2012 1:51 PM

The Founders did not envision us to be an entitlement society. But they did see the possibility of future rogue governments robbing the county and it's citizens of their sovereignty, which is exactly what is happening at rip tide speed. The Comstitution has been hijacked & looks more like the Communist Manifesto. You can only sell this snake oil by calling it "social justice" to the unsuspecting. The Founders said it was our duty to remedy this situation & gave us several alternatives.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 9th, 2012 11:04 AM

So you don't think the power to levy taxes and use those taxes to provide for the general welfare is a communitarian idea?


Posted: July 9th, 2012 10:19 AM

The Constitution is not a communitarian document. By Obama's definition it's the final synthesis of all conflicting political racial,& religious ideologies -that men will only be free when they make themselves total slaves to the state- or rather global social justice. The new religion of government. How many votes would this dictator get if he were this transparent to the ignorant masses. If this is what you're advocating Dan you should be ashamed to call yourself an American

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 9th, 2012 9:03 AM

Well RJ, what exactly do you mean by preserving the "Constitutional republic"? Do you mean preserving the part of the Constitution that confers on the federal government the authority and responsibility to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare? You probably don't mean that, given that the current Republican party is bent on eroding or dismantling any federal programs (other than defense) that provide for the general welfare, labeling such programs "socialism." If you believe in libertarianism or social darwinism, that's fine, but don't try to dress that belief in the Constitution, which is a communitarian document, not a libertarian one.


Posted: July 8th, 2012 12:03 PM

Frank - Republicans defend only those who want to preserve this Constituional Republic unlike those who want to turn us into a European socialist welfare state. What is pathetic is that you don' t seem to want to recognize these conflicting differences. Look in the mirror & realize you're pointing that finger at yourself.

Lazy Person  

Posted: July 8th, 2012 10:52 AM

I'm voting for Obama so I can sit on my lazy butt and get my Obama money. Why bother to work when I can get my free Obama money.

Frank from Ishtar  

Posted: July 8th, 2012 7:50 AM

You poor misguided Republicans...its so sad to see you defend millionaire and billionaires..you actually think they represent anyone but the super wealthy? Your pathetic Daniel Hurtado and "Unfortunately".

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 11:38 PM

The filibuster is a means of blocking legislation where a majority of the Senate supports it. The Dems were trying to pass the ACA, not block it. Three was no occasion for the Dems to have invoked the filibuster with regard to the ACA. Did Reid make some deals to get the 60 votes? Sure. Good or bad, that is not invoking the filibuster. Are you denying that the Dems adopted the mandate and relinquished the public option in an effort to bring the Repubs on board?


Posted: July 5th, 2012 3:38 PM

I was addressing that you were saying that it was solely R's who were threatening to invoke the filibuster. It was not. Do you remember this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html. The final bill was negotiated and written by the D's. Yes, they tried to pick off one or two R's - in order to claim bipartisanship - but it was too much for even the ME Senators to digest. In the end, written (much of it in private with lobbyists) and approved by the D's. Who then got whomped in 2010.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 2:10 PM

But U, your scenario assumes that the Ds voted monolithically, as the Rs did. I think there is not much dispute that the frequency of the Rs use of the filibuster during Obama's term has been unprecedented. Even if one or two or 5 Dems were opposed to the ACA in its preliminary forms, it should have passed. But the Repubs' invocation of the filibuster prevented that from happening. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Pelosi and Reid wrote the bill themselves, but, during the course of the negotiations, if you will, they did include Republican ideas, and ax progressive ideas (e.g., the public option)in an effort to bring Republicans on board.


Posted: July 5th, 2012 1:23 PM

@DH, yes, space prevented me from including this: :-) - after my "mis-spelled" comment. But, seriously, I don't disagree about the 60 votes for the filibuster, but YOU claimed that the R's in the Senate "made unprecedented" use of it - when the D's ALREADY had 60 Senators. Translated: the D's had COMPLETE control over this. And they utilized it: Pelosi/Reid and staff wrote the whole thing themselves. Then Brown won and so they passed it via, I believe, "Reconciliation."

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 1:11 PM

Moreover, Unfortnately, your statement that the present ACA is solely the legislation of Pelosi and Reid is not accurate. The original house bill included a pubic option. The public option was reluctantly jettisoned in order to get the bill through the Senate. In other words, the present ACA is the result of the proponents of the legislation continually bidding against themselves in order to try to make it palatable to the opposition.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 1:04 PM

Touche with regard to misspelling, Unfortunately. But you are missing the point about the filibuster. It should not require 60 votes to pass legislation. 59 should be sufficient. Indeed, 51 should be sufficient. By invoking the filibuster the R's ensured that the minority would prevail and that the tail would wag the dog.


Posted: July 5th, 2012 12:05 PM

@Daniel Hurtado. I'm a "conservative," but I acknowledge that you've raised some good points. I, though, wish to address your comment about R Senators and the filibuster (which YOU mis-spelled). If you didn't know, prior to the election of Brown from Mass, the D's had a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Translated: "the present ACA" was solely the legislation of Pelosi/Reid. The "unprecedented" is due to them. It is also why the D's were wiped out in 2010. They should have focused on jobs.


Posted: July 5th, 2012 11:52 AM

Obamacare is not about health care. It is the ultimate power grab by the gvt. It will immobilize the middle class financially & in terms of freedoms. Obamacare is to middle class what the Great Society was to the poor - keep them voting Dem for the next 200 yrs. This will not affect the 1 percent which clearly imcludes the Congress. Could this also explain that they have recused themselves once again from this despicable plan that will not ration their quality of care?

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 11:14 AM

"Realist" - I am curious about the basis for your claim that 20 million people will remain uninsured under the ACA. Are you including among that number those people who will choose not to purchase insurance and to instead pay the penalty/tax? In any event, Q, all public-benefit programs involve taxing everyone to benefit a subset of taxpayers. Indeed, the very concept of insurance is that everyone contributes to a pool of resources that ultimately will benefit only a subset of the insured. That said, if your and "Realist's" complaint is that the ACA does not provide coverage to a sufficient number of people, then you should have supported single-payor or at least a public option.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 10:55 AM

@OPRFDad. I will refrain from calling you a "shill" (that's how it's actually spelled), though I'm not certain why you are any less an anti-Obama "shill" than an Obama supporter is a pro-Obama "shill." There are many aspects of Obama's presidency about which I am unhappy or at least skeptical. With regard to healthcare insurance, I would have supported a single-payor system or at least a robust public insurance program. Yet, on balance, I think the ACA is substantially preferable to the status quo. As to "abuse of power," are you forgetting that the Republican Senators made unprecedented use of the fillibuster to block legislation that had majority support in both houses? That is what gave us the present ACA, with which many people on both ends of the political spectrum are unhappy. And, the democratically enacted ACA has now been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. So, which abuse of power are you talking about?

Realist from Oak Park  

Posted: July 5th, 2012 8:20 AM

Q, that is a great question. Ensured his own legacy, maybe as most if us won't read the law? On a broad level he's eroded alot of individual freedoms - Regarding choice in coverage, and also religious - mandating religious health care providers/employers provide contraception, etc. Even if you aren't religious, you should be concerned that the Obama admin is infringing on those rights.


Posted: July 4th, 2012 11:53 PM

Obamacare will add 17 new taxes starting in 2013 - $502 B in first 10 yrs. 75 percent of new taxes to be paid by those making $120K & under. In 2013 if you are 75 years or older major life saving procedures will not be covered by Medicare. Obama appointed "panels" not doctors decide on what care you will receive based on yearly allocated $$ for your age. $500B already taken out of Medicare for Medicaid whereby there will be rationing for the elderly. Obama & AARP are not friends of seniors .

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: July 4th, 2012 10:59 PM

Realist from Oak Park, if there are 20 million not receiving health care, then what did Obama do? He doesn't need money for another campaign, he can run on his record.

Realist from Oak Park  

Posted: July 4th, 2012 10:32 PM

Q, there is no national healthcare. The law leaves 20 million or so uninsured. True universal coverage only works in a single payor system. This law does not set that up, but instead taxes everyone to cover some, without cost controls. Taxpayer dollars will fund insurance company profits. It also penalizes employers for providing good plans to their employees (a 40% tax on the cost of the benefits). Everyone who I have talked to who has read the law thinks it harms patients, doctors and ins cos


Posted: July 4th, 2012 7:43 PM

I love how pro-Obama schills conveniently forget the Democratic majorities his first two years. Then, he and his brethren were perceived to be abusing their power and they got stomped in 2010. The pro-Obama crowd also can't seem to muster an argument to support his re-election. Should be easy for a sitting president, but since he's done so little, there isn't much to run on, unless you are in a union and are anti-business.

Bruce Samuels  

Posted: July 4th, 2012 5:25 PM

I agree with everything that Heineke says about Romney and the Republicans but I differ with his conclusion. Obama is too dependent on corporate money and has chosen to support oil exploration and oil wars over green energy. He has also been destroying civil liberties by creating a police state and killing with drone attacks, both Americans and foreigners. Even Eichmann got a trial. I'm voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who represents the 99% and not the corporate elite.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: July 4th, 2012 4:25 PM

Liberals = Apologists for Obama, if Obama really did get National Health Care for everyone who needs it, then that is worth two terms of any President. I just haven't figured out yet if there is any National Health Care.

Liberals = Apologists for Obama from OP  

Posted: July 4th, 2012 4:15 PM

I rate my government officials on just one thing: Their effectiveness at doing the job they said that they were going to do. Which is why is troubles me that every Liberal I know refers to what a great job Obama has done despite Repub opposition. That's a nice excuse for lack of delivering much these past 3 years. Perhaps if he hadn't jammed Obamacare down our throats, he might have been able to collaborate with those on the other side of the aisle. Obama has done a weak job. Period. Sad.


Posted: July 3rd, 2012 6:20 PM

Do try to recall what took place in 2010. I can assure you that if Obama wins - by the typical "hook or by crook" methods & he gets to implement all those socialist austerity measures, it will be the Democrats who will protest the loudest. There will be hand wringing, wailing, whining & gnashing of teeth. There will be no one else to blame but yourselves. In the case of Grinnell why is it always a question of race or sex.? You call yourselves "progressives"?

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2018

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2018 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad