I did not vote for Obama. I disagreed with his reasoning regarding capitalism and with his critical, although open assessment of our Constitution ...
I am suspect of his foreign policy. ...
Obama is a globalist. His idealism concerns itself more with the welfare of a global community than with the well-being of a nation.
That being said, as president of the United States he is an awesome figurehead. His stature emanates self-assurance to the world. On this, I am proud that he is my president. In much of the world he is very popular and well-liked.
As I read it, I wondered what "reasoning" regarding capitalism the writer had in mind. Same with his "assessment" of the Constitution. Since he didn't tell us, I wondered what "foreign policy" he objects to. On what basis he sees Obama as a globalist. Absent specifics, I could only assume the man had ingested the usual Foxorovian talking points. I can't think of much Obama actually has done to undermine capitalism (maybe the writer doesn't like capitalism), and a lot that he's done to support it. Same with foreign policy. It's such a meaningless term when used with no reference to anything. But then the writer surprised me, ending with this:
In my opinion, it might be more beneficial to re-elect Obama.... kick out some of the blatantly liberal politicians, yet retain a man who reflects confidently our continued devotion for peace.
Why include this in a seemingly unrelated blog post? Well, because it seems to reflect the incomprehensible incomprehension of those who think they dislike Obama because of the steady stream of misinformation and disinformation they're getting. Like the Reagan/Bush economic falsities, they soak up the rest of it as well, accepting a vision of Obama that bears no relation to reality; the acceptance of which they're hard-pressed to explain.
But that letter might be the first time I saw a little -- if unacknowledged and oblique -- recognition of the disconnect. Instead of the usual Foxified certainty, the man just seems confused.