Politics is paint on a flat surface

I simply want to see what I'm seeing, and then I simply want things to fit together with a certain amount of elegance, to feel that the things I'm seeing are right for their place and time and are as close as they possibly can be to being the solution for the situation they're in.

Artist's like Donald Judd understood something of the basic human need to see things the way they're seeing them. "Actual space is intrinsically more powerful and specific than paint on a flat surface", Judd wrote in his essay, Specific Objects, 1965. The interior designers' of Harpa, the concert hall in Reykjavit, Iceland where this picture was taken, have assembled a composition which could be a Judd sculpture from the mid-1960's but that has the exclusive public purpose of providing a place for concert-goers to relax at intermission with a glass of white wine.

I was thinking last night about how I was seeing our national political situation, specifically the differences between Romney and Obama, the two main protagonist's of our current drama.

If Romney were to become President, every time I'd see him I'd be thinking about him all the time as I was thinking about George W. Bush all the time he was President. I'd have to be thinking about Romney all that time and not be liking what I was thinking.

Whereas Obama is so efficient that I hardly think about him at all. No, he's not what I thought he'd be, he's not the guy I rang doorbells for in a convservative red-state suburb of Los Angeles in 2008. But when I see Obama I'm generally pleased and have no desire for an alternative.

Furthermore, when I think of Romney being President I think there are only two possibilities: 1) not quite as bad as I think or 2) much worse than I think. Having read the Republican Party Platform for 2012, and not liking what I've seen, I have cause to think that a Romney Presidency would be much worse than I think.

The Republican Party Platform is quite an astonishing document. One might call it "quaint" as The Geneva Convention was called "quaint" by one of the neo-con operatives of the Bush/Cheney era. The word "freedom" is used quite freely. "Freedom in the Workplace," for instance, which translates as I read it into much more freedom for owners and much less for workers. Marriage is "defended" as a "Sacred Contract", but not same-sex marriage. The 2nd Amendment is of course sacrosanct. There should be no federal funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood, and the states should have the power to determine a woman's reproductive rights.

It's said that Romney has a chance to win. He seems to want it a great deal, perhaps more than Obama. I can't help but see Romney as a far worse candidate than John McCain, much less Obama--much less direct with his vision, much less experienced, much too much an embodiment of privilege and that faceless corporate approach to civic matters that passes for good government these days. It's so obvious to me. Is there anything I'm not seeing here that I should be seeing?

Therefore I put forward the new Obama 2012 re-election campaign position & themeline: Art: headshot of Romney. Headline: THIS MAN COULD BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

And as to the frequent invocation of the word "Freedom" in the Republican Party Platform, I am reminded of Isaiah Berlin's saying regarding freedom, "Liberty for wolves means death to sheep."