Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the wrong choice for the vast majority of Oklahomans, but there’s no doubt the candidate will win here by a wide margin in November.
What that victory will mean, to state the obvious, is that Oklahomans in droves will be voting against their own financial interests in what has become a four-year contradictory and perplexing ritual much discussed, investigated and berated through the years. They will also be voting against a sitting Democratic president, who clearly does represent the financial interests of the majority of Oklahomans and who has done a solid job in adverse circumstances created by a Republican presidential administration.
Even single-issue voters—the vocal anti-abortion, gun-rights and anti-Obamacare folks in Oklahoma—can take little solace in voting for Romney, who has supported abortion rights for women in the past, who has not distinguished himself as a particularly strong advocate of the National Rifle Association’s agenda and whose Romneycare in Massachusetts was the inspiration of Obamacare If it’s only about abortion, guns and Obamacare for particular GOP voters here, then Romney’s candidacy should hardly inspire much enthusiasm, and those issues essentially become a wash between the two candidates. Once you factor in Romney’s open dismissal of Oklahomans who don’t pay federal income tax, including seniors who live solely on meager Social Security payments, then the choice is clear. President Barack Obama will best represent the interests of a majority of residents here.
Again, I realize Romney will win the state’s electoral votes, and I know that trying to make a counter-argument against his candidacy and urging support for Obama will be construed by many on the right or left here as futile. But there’s the glaring historical error to continuously note as a vast majority of Oklahomans will once again vote against their obvious personal fiscal interests to support the self-serving agenda of extremely wealthy people (it can't get clearer than this election), and there’s a huge need for more published and sustained counter-arguments to the ultra-conservative, pro-Romney claims made by the corporate media here, primarily on the editorial page of The Oklahoman.
Here then are three reasons Oklahoman should vote for Obama:
The loss of the mortgage deduction, higher taxes on the poor, middle-class and maybe even seniors, a loss of medical access and much higher health costs, big cuts in Medicare and Social Security, these are the possible results of a Romney presidency. Romney is the wrong choice for Oklahomans. Obama is clearly the candidate who will do the most good for the most Oklahomans.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news or futuristic predictions, but what if Oklahoma’s current economic crisis is structural and systemic and can’t be resolved with higher fossil fuel prices because of peak oil demand? After Doha failed, Saudis will...
Trigger warning: The Oklahoman editorial board and its commentary writers are made up of a bunch of bullies looking for ways to snark attack anything that doesn’t fit into the reductionist and inhumane conservative worldview. Oklahoma Democrats call...
A recent editorial in The Oklahoman discussing tax incentives for the state’s growing wind energy sector fails to note the hypocrisy that one of the leading opponents of the incentives is Harold Hamm, the chief executive officer of Continental...