I'll hold my nose and vote for anyone who can beat Obama!

[Husker in Spokane]

We hear this a lot but don't often hear specific reasons why. I suspect because many think he is an uppity black man but just don't say it. For those of you who are willing to set aside your principles and vote for someone you don't support in order to defeat Obama, what are your reasons why?

[DIHRDHusker]

We hear this a lot but don't often hear specific reasons why. I suspect because many think he is an uppity black man but just don't say it. For those of you who are willing to set aside your principles and vote for someone you don't support in order to defeat Obama, what are your reasons why?

With the bolded part above, you don't deserve a decent response. Geeeeeesh, the far left spews its' mantra.

[Sonuvahusker]

I suspect because many think he is an uppity black man but just don't say it.

Disgusting.

I've seen folks vacationed for far less than this. It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.

[RedPhoenix]

With the bolded part above, you don't deserve a decent response. Geeeeeesh, the far left spews its' mantra.

I agree with this. There are about a thousand reasons why someone would vote for "anyone but Obama" that have ZERO to do with his color. If it was Hillary Clinton, they would be saying "anyone but Clinton". Are there some who won't vote for him cause he's black? Sure. But I think they are a very small percentage.

[redmachine]

Yay...more of the race issue.

It's actually pretty amusing how some on the Left just can't wrap their heads around the fact that the man is just NOT a good President in the eyes of a lot of people. It's like they have to come up with some reason other than his policies or beliefs.

[Big Red Rick]

I suspect most people will vote against him the same reason people voted against Bush or against McCain on the last go around.

I worked with a guy back in 2004, his brother actually played football for NU, so no names thrown out for this one! Anyway, I asked him a similar question, why vote for Kerry instead of Bush? His answer? "ANYONE but Bush." That's all he repeated. I asked him why he liked Kerry, "ANYONE but Bush," was the answer. I asked him what he knew of Kerry, "ANYONE but BUSH," again.

So then I asked him if he would vote for Robert Byrd (d). He said "Yes, because he's not Bush." Then, to illustrate the point I said "O---, are you going to stand there, as a black man, and tell me that you would rather vote for a former Kleagle (recruiter) for the KKK than George W Bush?" He said, "Well, that one I'd have to think about."

[ChitownHusker]

I agree with this. There are about a thousand reasons why someone would vote for "anyone but Obama" that have ZERO to do with his color. If it was Hillary Clinton, they would be saying "anyone but Clinton". Are there some who won't vote for him cause he's black? Sure. But I think they are a very small percentage.

I look at it this way. Are the percentage of Americans who would have voted for anybody but Clinton in 1996 all that different from the percentage of Americans who would vote for anybody but Obama in 2012? I doubt it. If that's the case, then it's fair to surmise then the percentage of people whose vote is predicated on President Obama's race is pretty small.

I guess I don't technically fall in the anybody but Obama crowd. I would actually vote for Obama if Ron Paul were the nominee, which there is really no chance of occurring. I believe Obama's policies have been very bad for the country and have stifled the economic recovery, but I believe Ron Paul's policies, particularly the return to the gold standard, would send us into a Second Great Depression. Beyond Ron Paul, however, there is no candidate still standing who I would not vote for instead of Obama. I like President Obama as a person, I respect his intellect, but I think he has been a bad president and has not earned another four years.

[FLA4NEB]

I look at it this way. Are the percentage of Americans who would have voted for anybody but Clinton in 1996 all that different from the percentage of Americans who would vote for anybody but Obama in 2012? I doubt it. If that's the case, then it's fair to surmise then the percentage of people whose vote is predicated on President Obama's race is pretty small.

I guess I don't technically fall in the anybody but Obama crowd. I would actually vote for Obama if Ron Paul were the nominee, which there is really no chance of occurring. I believe Obama's policies have been very bad for the country and have stifled the economic recovery, but I believe Ron Paul's policies, particularly the return to the gold standard, would send us into a Second Great Depression. Beyond Ron Paul, however, there is no candidate still standing who I would not vote for instead of Obama. I like President Obama as a person, I respect his intellect, but I think he has been a bad president and has not earned another four years.

If Ron Paul was president we would see the return of a strong congress...and we might actually see a number of people flee to Canada. I would take that over a 2nd term for President Obama

[SealBeachHusker]

We hear this a lot but don't often hear specific reasons why. I suspect because many think he is an uppity black man but just don't say it. For those of you who are willing to set aside your principles and vote for someone you don't support in order to defeat Obama, what are your reasons why?

There was a popular phrase during the first Clinton campaign; "It's the economy, stupid".

[Warhorse]

If Ron Paul was president we would see the return of a strong congress...and we might actually see a number of people flee to Canada. I would take that over a 2nd term for President Obama

How would Ron Paul as president usher in "the return of a strong congress?"

[FLA4NEB]

How would Ron Paul as president usher in "the return of a strong congress?"

Give it some thought...I am sure you can figure it out.

[ColoREDo]

...and we might actually see a number of people flee to Canada.

Paul would cause people to do that? Santorum maybe.

[Warhorse]

Give it some thought...I am sure you can figure it out.

You made the statement so defend it by answering a legitimate question with a legitimate answer for once.

[Pops]

Obama has my vote

[FLA4NEB]

If Ron Paul was president we would see the return of a strong congress...and we might actually see a number of people flee to Canada. I would take that over a 2nd term for President Obama

How would Ron Paul as president usher in "the return of a strong congress?"

You made the statement so defend it by answering a legitimate question with a legitimate answer for once.

I think with a President Paul we would see the majority of Congress stand up to the encroachment of Executive power over the Legislative branch. I can easily imagine the response of many in congress as a President Paul pushes for what he has proposed.

It is almost as if you have never noticed the ebb and flow of power in DC over the year between the branches of government.

[FLA4NEB]

Paul would cause people to do that? Santorum maybe.

You know we always here people (from both sides) threaten to bolt of so in so gets elected but nobody ever does...President Paul might do the trick...but I doubt it...anyway I am heading to Singapore or maybe NZ but only if Nebraska Football sinks into an abyss they can't get out of (I was pricing it out under Cally )

[Warhorse]

[QUOTE=FLA4NEB;877440]I think with a President Paul we would see the majority of Congress stand up to the encroachment of Executive power over the Legislative branch. I can easily imagine the response of many in congress as a President Paul pushes for what he has proposed.

It is almost as if you have never noticed the ebb and flow of power in DC over the year between the branches of government. Not sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??[/QUOTE]

I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.

[bilsker]

I agree with this. There are about a thousand reasons why someone would vote for "anyone but Obama" that have ZERO to do with his color. If it was Hillary Clinton, they would be saying "anyone but Clinton". Are there some who won't vote for him cause he's black? Sure. But I think they are a very small percentage.

Cancelled out by the tiny percentage that votes for him bccause he IS black.

The OP's comment was rather stupid and ill-informed. To paraphrase the great george Carlin: Why vote against him cuz he's black when there are a milliion other reasons to vote against him?

[Chi-Town Cube]

The race card may play a role, but no different than in 2008. If someone had a problem voting for Obama in 2008 because he is black, it isn't likely going to have changed much. I mean, he's still black.

I haven't decided who I am going to vote for. I'll wait for the circus that is the Republican primary to end and see how Romney handles debating Obama. I would be lying if I said I have been overly impressed with anyone the Republicans have managed to drudge up. If, by some chance, Santorum defeats Romney (fat chance), I will vote for Obama.

On one hand, I don't think Obama has been a great president. I think he has done a good job on foreign policy, but that's about it. He pushed through a healthcare bill that doesn't the underlying problems and did so foolishly and haphazardly. The issue that required paramount importance was the economy and I just don't give him much credit in that arena. Plus, I am a strong proponent of tax code reform and some form of entitlement reform for no other reason than we have to. There aren't any other options. I just haven't seen enough from the Obama administration on those areas.

On the other hand, I also am hesitant to reward the Republican party for basically being nothing more than a roadblock for the past four years. Even on issues like Senate appointment confirmations. Also, the Republican party is being pushed farther right than I am comfortable with. I don't identify with evangelicals and don't understand how someone can be for "small government", but then try to legislate someones personal choices. I also don't like the blind conviction, "my way or the highway" attitude displayed by certain members of the Republican party. To me, if you cannot fathom that you might be wrong, you aren't fit to lead because you cannot deviate decision making in the face of contrary evidence.

So, to sum up, I'm probably going to be holding my nose at the ballot box this year.

[FLA4NEB]

sure why you think you need to end every post directed towards me with a passive aggressive personal jab. Care to explain this strange compulsion??

There was nothing passive aggressive about that jab And it was directed at you because you addressed me directly. If you don't want to spar don't get in the ring.

I don't think that electing Paul would automatically motivate the majority of Congress to "stand up to" or for anything, especially when he would be dealing with Dems in control of both the House and the Senate.

I think if Paul was elected and he pushed for what he is proposing Congress would push back and pretty hard. He is proposing not only limiting the power of future Presidents but also Congress in very large ways. I don't see Congress rolling over for that and if he uses executive orders and cabinet appointees to start dismantling what he can from the executive side of the table. I could see Congress challenge executive orders as well as pass laws the compel departments to stay in place.

Congress has a lot more to lose in the small government equation and will fight harder (a cross party lines) to keep their power and control.

(if you are going to continue to do that in line red bold commenting could you please learn how to do it without messing up the formatting tags...thank you.)