A friend of mine declared on Facebook (where I'm also "imobannon") that he was undecided for the upcoming election and challenged his friends on both sides to produce a positive statement about their preferred candidate, without focusing on the other side. In other words, he wanted a "What my candidate has done/will do" argument, rather than a "The other candidate is worse" argument.
I've partied with him, and I believe his comment was sincere since he isn't much into politics and I doubt he watches or reads much politics. Here was my reply:
----------
Jeff-
Here is a chart (http://media.cygnus.com//files/cygnus/image/CSN/2012/JUL/usbls-july2012_10748318.png) from the bureau of labor statistics (sometimes called the "bikini chart" because of the left side).
It shows the last year of the previous administration. The economic crash and job decline started in 2008- I'm not saying "blame Bush" (that would be a violation of the rules, and both sides have arguable points about the politics of regulations enacted 2 administrations ago).
So, neutral on the "why," looking at the chart you can see that U.S. employment tanked starting in about Feb. 2008 and was eventually catastrophic. It started to turn back in about Feb 2009, a month after Obama took office, but that can't be credited to this administration. The initial bailouts, as much as people on both sides hated them, were started by Bush, and were later continued by Obama's administration. (As you look at the chart, the blue is when Obama came into office.)
You can see that things did actually get better- and in about the same amount of time as they got bad (the bikini effect). But even with positive growth shown on the right side of the chart, which only goes through Dec 2011- could find a more recent one, but would welcome one), those jobs numbers, although positive aren't really back to "healthy." Positive isn't good enough, when we have more people joining the labor force every day than leaving it.
So, the Republican argument that job growth should be better- I can understand that. I agree with it, even. But, I think the bigger problem has been a total unwillingness to compromise by the legislators- the people who actually pass laws. Both of our sides can point the finger at the other for this, but I think there is more tolerance for varying views on our side- we have the blue dogs, conservative dems, as well as moderates and liberals and tree huggers.
On taxes: Most working Americans have gotten a tax break that started with the last stimulus act. The amount withheld from our paychecks for Social Security and Medicare has been decreased. It was as dramatic as a $200-500 check in the mail like the last administration, but it actually equaled about the same amount, but spread out through the year at about $40 per paycheck for the average wage earner.
On women's health rights, that's a personal issue. But with even most Catholics being in favor of birth control, the right of women to have personal control over their reproductive rights is something this administration has supported.
The environment. Global warming is A) Real, B) Enhanced by the activities of man over the past 200 years- which is when the industrial revolution started, particularly the last 100 years when we started using fuels that create smog and other pollutants. Only one of the parties acknowledges that we can actually do things to lessen these effects. And we can be a leader in this space- which would be great for business.
On gun rights: Gun rights have actually expanded under Obama's administration. There have been no new limits, and actually the carrying of arms in national parks were added under this administration. I'm a Democrat and a veteran. I own a couple of firearms, and I don't feel at all threatened that they're about to be taken away.
Then there's the healthcare act. There is no law called Obamacare, it's just the nickname made by some. It was actually thought of not by Romney, as is claimed (he instituted an almost identical version at the state level as gov of Massachusetts), but actually by conservatives in the mid 1990s, when they liked that (with a mandate) as a competitive market alternate option to Bill Clinton's try at a universal health care option. The mandate method basically helps ensure that insurance companies are protected and still a part of the process. I've already got insurance, and it isn't changing- but for the millions of Americans who didn't have any, and especially those with kids, it will help.
(Wow, that was long.)
I think it's safe to say that I'm voting for the re-election of President Barack Hussein Obama. His middle name doesn't bother me, I hope my middle name (Matthew) doesn't bother you.
----------
Everything above was from my comment. He's replied, favorably... but we're still waiting on a "positive" spin from our conservative acquaintances on Facebook.