On Day 36, "90 Days, 90 Reasons" Runs Out of Reasons to Re-Elect Obama

We've told you before about 90 Days, 90 Reasons, the website launched by literary darling Dave Eggers. Today, we're laying the project to rest.

Ideologically, 90 Days, 90 Reasons was a mess from the very beginning. Eggers praised Obama for being a peacenik, even though that is not true. Shortly thereafter, film critic Roger Ebert submitted the patently false claim that "President Obama faced down the GOP and the health industry to finally reform American healthcare."

Things went further awry when Jesse Eisenberg reported that he was being held captive in Mongolia. This was really troubling for Eisenberg, because if it were up to him, "I'd never leave my apartment and, more specifically, the bedroom area." However, his captors were nice enough to put him up in a yurt with a wireless connection and a Michelin rated tapas place downstairs, from which Eisenberg hunt-and-pecked this gem: "I think Barack Obama is a good leader for our diverse country because he's seen how the world lives." 

Things got more surreal from there. Eggers recruited a rock star to write: "Finally!!! Sweet justice! A real live person is our president! Who has a real live family and a loving relationship with his wife! A president that does not seem like an evil robot!!!"

Until recently, I was willing to say this for the project: Every entry prior to the above was, at the very least, distinct from the inane bullshit that came before it.

Now, 90 Days, 90 Reasons is simply recycling previous days' affirmations. 

Par example

Day 1: Obama is the first president in U.S. history to acknowledge the right of gay couples to marry and enjoy the full benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

Sample sentence: "My sister Megan is married to one of the most wonderful women I have ever met. Her name is Amber." 

Day 18: Mitt Romney opposes marriage equality.

Sample sentence: "My cousin, who not long ago retired from a career in the Episcopalian ministry, is gay, is out, has been out for a long time." 

Day 21: President Obama promotes an openness that his opponent hopes to quash.

Sample Sentence: "A friend recently told me a story about a gay woman who, for over a decade, was in a loving and committed relationship."

I suspect all of the above authors truly mean it when they say they have gay friends whose lives suddenly seemed less bad the moment Obama stopped whipping gay America with a giant wire hanger, pulled it close, and said, "Stop crying, baby. I've evolved," because symbolic actions sometimes lead to actual actions. 

But there is a problem with these testimonials, and it is not that none of the authors above is, uh, gay, or that Obama's advocacy on behalf of the GLBT community is as tepid as it is recent. It is that Dave Eggers promised us 90 Days, 90 Reasons to re-elect Obama, and what he's giving us is 90 Days, Half a Dozen Reasons Obama Helps Rich Straight People Feel Less Bad About Their Own Privilege.

Days 3 (written by a man) and 11 (a woman) are both about what Obama has done for women; Days 9 and 16 are about the things Obama has done to help at-risk youth; Days 17, 22, 23, and 28 are about how rich Republicans hate poor people; Days 32 and 33 are about how Obama, despite his record deportation numbers, loves immigrants; Days 7, 8, and 24 are about how Obama, despite his propensity for charring Muslim children, is a foreign policy whiz. The days I haven't mentioned specifically are mostly about how Obama is just better; the words "Supreme Court" appear in various entries so often that you'd think Chief Justice John Roberts had voted to strike down Obamacare. 

And today's entry? Well, Reason 36 ("Mitt Romney plans to remove regulations on air and water quality and cut off funding for the National Labor Relations Board") sounds a lot like Reason 27 ("Romney wants to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.") 

In its initial two weeks, I wondered if the biggest problem with 90 Days, 90 Reasons is that it's being written by people who stopped having their assistants read the news to them three years ago. Now I wonder if there just aren't 90 solid, Team Blue reasons to re-elect Obama.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    My god gays are a cheap date. What has Obama actually done for them other than lip service and changing DADT, something that actually affects very few gays?

  • Randian||

    It's TEAM action writ large.

    The Republicans, IMO, are to blame, not the Democrats.

  • John||

    The Democrats only take them for granted because they can. They know gays care more about leftist politics than they do about anything else. So they treat them accordingly.

  • Randian||

    They can because the Yokels and the Church Ladies in the GOP care who sticks what where.

    When one major party is actively hostile to your lifestyle, you are going to seek shelter in the other one even if the other one will merely take you for granted. Because being taken for granted is better than being actively discriminated against.

  • John||

    The Democratic party is full of people who object to gay rights. You don't think blacks and hispanics go to church? That is a myth that only Republicans are hostile to the gay lifestyle. A whole big chunk of the Democratic party is as well. As a matter of fact, most of the world, sans middle and upper class Western White people, are damned hostile to the gay life style.

  • Randian||

    You can't argue with a perception, John, no matter what the reality.

    The gay marriage amendments engineered by the Re-Elect Bush Team are enough for any gay anywhere to rationally say "lesser of two evils"

    Now, do I blame gays for making their sexual identity their entire identity? Yes. However, you have one party that sometimes gives them the time of day where the other campaigns all the way down to the local level to ostracize them.

    If the GOP has a gay perception problem, they need to look in the mirror to see why.

  • Jim Treacher||

    That must be why the only people who have a problem with gay Republicans these days are the Democrats.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Worth noting that the Republican share of the gay vote is ~30% -- better than how the typical Republican does with the black or much-vaunted Jewish vote. Adjusted for income, it comes quite close to parity.

    All that to say that there are plenty of gays out there who don't make their sexual preferences a central part of their voting habits.

  • John||

    If the Republicans came out for total gay rights tomorrow, do you honestly believe gays would vote for them? I don't. If they would, gays would be supporting Johnson who argues for just that. A Johnson Presidency would do more for gays than an Obama Presidency.

  • ||

    If TEAM RED actually came out for total gay rights tomorrow, TEAM BLUE would suddenly oppose them. And gays would switch sides. Of course, that isn't going to happen, but you know what I'm talking about.

  • John||

    And gays would switch sides

    I don't think they would. You have to remember leftist politics corrupts everything. Think about Episiarch. Gay leftists are just a-okay with Obama coming out and saying it is wrong to insult Islam. Yes, Islam, the same religion where they debate whether homosexuals should be stoned or buried alive.

    Some day in Europe, the gays are going to vote themselves into the concentration camps and gladly go in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance. Yeah, it is really that crazy.

  • ||

    Think about Episiarch

    Oh, I do, John, constantly. Oh wait, you meant "think about Alison Brie, Episiarch". OK, can do.

  • John||

    An appeal to narcissism is nearly always effective.

  • ||

    But seriously, John, it's because, just like so many straight people, a lot of gays are also partisans, and they are on TEAM BLUE because TEAM RED hates them. Give them a chance to switch sides, and they'll just as enthusiastically be TEAM RED. You overemphasize ideology. It's about TEAM and group identity much more than anything else.

  • Brett L||

    I think at this point I might know as many gay Republicans as gay Democrats, personally. Anecdote != Data, obviously, but the fact that I can name five on each TEAM off the top of my head makes me think the narrative may not be the truth.

  • LED||

    I completely agree. It's amazing how many of my fellow gays simply don't care about anything other than lip service to gay rights. Being in support of gay rights but doing absolutely nothing about it when you're in the prime position to do so (refusing to defend DOMA doesn't count in the least) is worse off than following the typical anti-gay rhetoric.
    Dick Cheney is more progressive in gay rights than Obama. America is weird.

  • Randian||

    If the Republicans came out for total gay rights tomorrow, do you honestly believe gays would vote for them?

    Not tomorrow, no. But in ten years, yes.

    Gay leadership is predominantly white and affluent.

  • John||

    Gay leadership is predominantly white and affluent.

    And leftist. The leftist part is the more important part. If gay rights were the only issue, more gays would be Libertarian.

  • Randian||

    Well John I guess if the GOP is doing everything right then this is exactly where they should be: seen as socially intolerant with a rapidly-aging base that will be out of touch in 20 years.

  • John||

    But Libertarians are doing everything right. If anyone should be wary of government power, it should be the gays. Yet, gays are almost never libertarian. That tells me that they are never leaving the Democratic party no matter what.

    The question is, would gays vote Republicans if the Republicans were more pro gay. And my answer to t hat is no, because if being pro gay got you gay votes, the Libertarian party would do better among gay voters.

  • Randian||

    John, please spare the LP BS.

    99% of voters don't vote for the LP. Stating that gays ought to move en masse to the LP is just straight hackery.

    Like I said, if you want to persist in thinking your TEAM is doing everything right and it's everyone else's fault they have a perception problem, you go right ahead. I hope you don't do any marketing.

  • robc||

    I get Johns point, but I think I can make it better.

    Lets assume that being gay is an independent variable and has no correlation with other political issues.

    Like with anything, some will be SIVs. And thus, they cant vote for the GOP. And some wont, which is why Log Cabin Republicans exist.

    But, even amongst the SIVs, there have to be SOME significant number that are anti-leftist and cant bring themselves to vote for the Dems. And since they tend to be fairly liberal on social issues (at least gay rights ones) and more conservative on economic issues, you would think they would give the LP a try.

    Considering even gays would be affected by "dont waste your vote" arguments, it wouldnt be many, but enough to probably run the party.

    The fact that 50% of the LP isnt gay suggests that it isnt an independent variable.

    Thus, I dont see many switching parties. They are leftists, for some reason I cant explain.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Because being an activist is totally gay?

  • John||

    You miss the point Randian. It is not that the Republicans are doing everything right. It is that it doesn't matter what Republicans do. And besides that, why should Republicans screw their most loyal constituency for 2% of the population that hates them anyway?

  • The Hammer||

    "Stating that gays ought to move en masse to the LP is just straight hackery."

    No, this false equivocation bullshit is hackery. Saying that a group's stated interests coincide strongly with the LP's platform is just stating a fact.

  • GILMORE||

    Just so i know what's what, John = What are "TOTAL GAY RIGHTS"?

    I mean, the marriage thing is simple enough, and i personally think its not an issue as divided as pols pretend...(which is in essence a pretty stupid bureaucratic detail, regarding who you can legally put in your will, own shit together, file taxes jointly, etc)

    ..but what else is missing to make it 'in Total'. As far as I'm aware they share all the same rights as you or I, and can't be kept locked up as slaves (unless that's their thing)...

    Was there some missing superGay right I am unaware of?

  • Spoonman.||

    superGay right

    Marcus Bachmann?

  • PapayaSF||

    But gays LOVE lip service!

    *Rimshot*

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In fairness, none of the people writing about gay issues on Eisenberg's site are gay.

  • GILMORE||

    You mean Homosexual. As in Not.

    They are entirely gay in the colloquial sense, IMHO

    (in my hetero opinion)

  • ||

    Have a nice shearing, then.

  • ||

    What happened to the post I was responding to? It mentioned "sheeple".

  • alexdroog||

    I suspect all of the above authors truly mean it when they say they have gay friends whose lives suddenly seemed less bad the moment Obama stopped whipping gay America with a giant wire hanger, pulled it close, and said, "Stop crying, baby. I've evolved," because symbolic actions sometimes lead to actual actions.

    Awesome.

  • R C Dean||

    The first thing I thought when I read those posts was "I thought saying "Some of my best friends are X" was a sure sign of being a bigot.

  • nicole||

    In its initial two weeks, I wondered if the biggest problem with 90 Days, 90 Reasons is that it's being written by people who stopped having their assistants read the news to them three years ago. Now I wonder if there just aren't 90 solid, Team Blue reasons to re-elect Obama.

    Riggs, thank you, you killed this.

  • Randian||

    Sherman Alexie's essay was heap big stupid:

    I'm cynical. Yeah, I'm bitter. Yeah, I'm disappointed and hurt by Obama.

    But you know what? To love him, I only need to believe in 51% of what he does.
  • John||

    Just what was the 51%? And if the other 49% consisted of putting people in camps, would Alexie still love him? I guess so.

  • Randian||

    You have to read the whole thing to really get the full flavor of Stupid.

    Alexie's mad because Indians don't get catered to and because the Ghost of Ayn Rand is kicking the Democrats' asses (no, I am not making that up).

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    To be honest, I would not want to fuck with Ayn Rand's ghost either.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    According to one cartoon I read, all you have to do with the ghost of Ayn Rand is point out how ghosts are irrational and supernatural, and the ghost will vanish in a puff of logic.

  • GILMORE||

    Randian| 9.13.12 @ 12:18PM |#

    You have to read the whole thing to really get the full flavor of Stupid.

    I'll take your word for it. Your sample was painful enough on its own.

  • Loki||

    And if the other 49% consisted of putting people in camps, would Alexie still love him?

    It would depend on who exactly is being sent to the concentration reeducation happy fun time camps. If it's only people he doesn't like, not only would he personally get on his knees and literally suck Obama's cock, he would probably volunteer to help work the ovens.

  • ||

    Wow. Tyranny of the majority in pure, concentrated form. What a total scumbag.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Aw crap. I like Alexie's writing. I should have known better than to read this essay, though. It's best to never learn the political leanings of writers, actors, musicians, etc. Invariably, you will be disappointed.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Sherman Alexie: "Be rough with me. Treat me like the lowest whore in creation."

  • PapayaSF||

    A different list of reasons, linked by a Facebook friend, included something like "Obama started a commission to find government waste...." I laughed and just stopped reading at that point.

  • John||

    "Obama started a commission to find government waste...."

    That has never been done before.

  • 0x90||

    So you are for government waste? Government waste is a thing with which up I will not put.

  • GILMORE||

    We need to a second commission to monitor the effectiveness of the earlier Waste-reviewing commission. The second commission can deliver a report on how to improve the efficiency of future waste-hunting commissions.

  • ||

    Do we have a scorecard for whether or not starting the commission cost more than the "waste" it found?

  • Killazontherun||

    Reason did a write up about it some time ago. I don't recall the numbers but they were pretty absurdly skewed towards spending more to find the waste than the waste itself.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I'm against waste fraud and abuse in government.

    The waste is government spending,the abuse is of the taxpayer, and the fraud is the promises of politicians saying you can have it all.

  • Spoonman.||

    90 Days, Half a Dozen Reasons Obama Helps Rich Straight People Feel Less Bad About Their Own Privilege

    I love this post so much.

  • ||

    Yeah I'm stealing that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The vast rightwing conspiracy strikes again.

    Thanks, KOCHTOPUS!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Reason 36 ("Mitt Romney plans to remove regulations on air and water quality and cut off funding for the National Labor Relations Board") sounds a lot like Reason 27 ("Romney wants to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.")

    Wheeeeeeee!

  • GILMORE||

    DESTROY!!! DESTROY!!!! ALL ENVIRONMENT MUST BE DESTROY!!! DIRTY THE AIR!!! POISON THE WATER!!! DROWN THE POLAR BEARS!!!! EVICT AMERICAN INDIANS!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!! WHEEEEEEEE!!!!

  • Hugh Akston||

    At least that's a good picture of Episiarch, though.

  • ||

    How DARE you! My shitty facial hair is much less filled in than that!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Lists like that can be difficult, even if you've got good reasons. When you have few legitimate facts to support your cause, they're damned near impossible.

  • ||

    Now I wonder if there just aren't 90 solid, Team Blue reasons to re-elect Obama

    I'd go with that one. Especially given that some of the reasons, cited in the article, aren't even reasons. Like him being all peaceful and diplomatic and shit. You can simply strike those entries altogether, because they're lies.

  • Randian||

    Did Riggs just use "Team Blue"?

    Have the reason writers used that terminology before, or is this a first?

  • The Hammer||

    The Reason writers have been taking small, hesitant steps toward following the commentariat's jargon for a while now. It is nice to be tossed a bone now and then.

  • Proprietist||

    There are only two good reasons to vote for Obama:
    1.) Potential advancements for gay rights
    2.) Less likely to join Israel in an optional war with Iran and Syria than Romney.

    And Gary Johnson's still better on both issues.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    1.) Potential advancements for gay rights
    2.) Less likely to join Israel in an optional war with Iran and Syria than Romney.

    I really do not see any evidence of this at all. Why do you think it to be the case?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not like Obama has done anything substantive on gay marriage, for instance. Which he could've done back when Congress was controlled by the Democrats. What courage.

    On the war, that's total bullshit. He's more likely to get us in a war with all of his intervention followed by cowering in the Middle East.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Which leaves him with a list of 90 reasons Romney sucks or is perceived to suck. Oh, and Nobel Peace Prize.

  • The Hammer||

    I think they could drag Nobel. Peace. Prize out over 3 days. Hell, maybe just switch the title to "90 days, 90 words."

  • Proprietist||

    Note "potential" is vague and "less likely" is relative. He has indicated more inclination than Romney to advance gay rights, and he has indicated less inclination than Romney to engage Iran.

    Unless those are your primary issues and you believe the lesser of both evils fallacy, there's still no reason to vote for Obama.

  • Pro Libertate||

    1. Loves government and will expand it.
    2. Will preside over economic collapse, allowing the opportunity to start a new economic and political system altogether.
    3. Is blacker than Romney.
    4. Likes beer, unlike Captain Teetotaler.
    5. Isn't a crazy Mormon.
    6. Only has one wife.
    7. Has privatized manned spaceflight.
    8. Nicer to most Muslims.
    9. Very adept at drone process.
    10. Not an Apple fanboy.
    11. Already in the White House, saving America from expensive moves and transitions.
    12. Never worked for an evil corporation.
    13. Not a tax evader like some people.

    And so on.

  • ||

    Chuck Schumer says the exact opposite about Iran.

  • Proprietist||

    Yeah, and Schumer's always wrong about everything.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "He kept us out of war."

  • Pro Libertate||

    He built the aqueducts.

  • GILMORE||

    He also killed the Gorgon Medusa, before he claimed Andromeda, having rescued her from a sea monster sent by Poseidon in retribution for Queen Cassiopeia declaring that her daughter, Andromeda, was more beautiful than the Nereids.

    And he like, saved Libya from a horrible dictator, and they love us now. (goes back to watching cartoons)

  • Proprietist||

    Someone has to respond with 90 Days, 90 Reasons Progressives Should Not Vote for Obama. Just a start spilling off the top of my head:
    1.) Drone killing citizens
    2.) Broke Gitmo promise
    3.) Worse than Bush on Patriot Act
    4.) TSA expansion
    5.) Medical marijuana raids
    6.) Massive debt
    7.) Bailed out Wall Street
    8.) Monetary devaluation and effect on poor
    9.) Failed Afghanistan surge
    10.) Unemployment rate, failure to meet own estimates
    11.) Worsening health care costs and subsidizing insurance companies with mandate
    12.) Bradley Manning
    13.) Attempted extradition of Kim Dotcom from NZ
    14.) Libya intervention, which has obviously backfired
    15.) Lack of transparency
    16.) 47.6 million on food stamps three and a half years in
    17.) Joe Biden, the idiot clown
    18.) Fast and Furious (which progressives should be outraged at)
    19.) More deportations than Bush, falsely claims only targeting criminals
    20.) Anti-competitive Wall Street reforms favored only by rent-seeking big businesses that can afford compliance
    ...

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's too easy. I think 190 reasons could be generated without too much work.

  • Spoonman.||

    21.) Firing that Sherrod lady who worked at the USDA because of nonsensical outrage
    22.) Callous disregard for medical MJ
    23.) Broken lobbyist promise
    24.) Corporate welfare bonanza which is Obamacare
    25.) Horrible transparency policies
    26.) Continued attempts at cozy relationships with totalitarian regimes in Yemen, Russia, China
    27.) No effort to get rid of Cuba embargo

  • GILMORE||

    wot, no Solyndra?

  • Proprietist||

    I'm sure there's a way to spin Solyndra as bad for progressives. But note the point is to convince progressives who should be Obama's base, not libertarians and conservatives.

  • GILMORE||

    Oh.

    Good fucking luck with that, btw.

  • Proprietist||

    I'm pointing out it's a lot easier than convincing them to vote for him. Basically the only reason they vote for him is because Romney would supposedly be worse on the above listed things.

    Again, lesser of two evils, yada yada yada. Then they grouse about having to choose between giant douche and turd sandwich. Progressives should vote Green, libertarians should vote Libertarian, and voila, we have a four party system.

  • Jim Treacher||

    90 Days, 1 Reason: "I'm not a racist!"

  • ||

    If the Republicans came out for total gay rights tomorrow, do you honestly believe gays would vote for them?

    At the margin, over time more and more gays would vote for TEAM RED if they were more gay-friendly than the other team.

    The same way the South went from a D stronghold to an R stronghold.

    Not likely to happen -- the Rs are heavily theocratic -- but who knows.

  • ||

    The fact that 50% of the LP isnt gay suggests that it isnt an independent variable.

    My gut feeling from observing people who show up at LP events is that gays are more prevalent in the LP than in the general populace. Having the most gay-friendly positions helps.

  • GILMORE||

    STILL NO ANSWER?! WHAT ARE "TOTAL" GAY RIGHTS?

    Hotpants in the workplace? Aside from the marriage thing, what the hell is anyone agitating for?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement