Tonight we had friends over, and when the subject turned to
the upcoming election one of them trotted out the tired and most damaging of
memes: the only choice at the polls is
whether to vote for the jerk or the fool.
I was quick to disagree. In my opinion only a fool or a jerk
would believe such a thing. It’s cynical, intellectually lazy, and at its heart
it undermines the validity of the democratic process. It’s also categorically
untrue.
I’m a partisan voter; in the six Presidential elections in
which I’ve taken part (including Tuesday’s) I’ve never once crossed the
aisle. Yet you won’t catch me saying
that any of the six Democrats I’ve voted against were evil, stupid,
unpatriotic, or any of the other vapid insults we’re so quick to throw at
politicians; ditto of course for the folks I’ve voted ‘for’. Heck, going back my entire lifetime I’d say
that the only truly questionable character on a Presidential ticket would be
John Edwards, and even then the worst of his sins seem confined to abhorrent
choices in his personal life.
They disagree with
me, I disagree with them, and sure, I believe this country would be better off
if Obama and Carter had never got their hands on the Oval Office; much better
in fact. So what? It’s possible to disagree with another human being without
adopting the idiotic notion that they therefore they must be in cahoots with the
devil.
[While I’m on the subject, I wish people would stop
complaining about political ads and the ‘wasteful’ expense of campaigning.
Americans spend more money on Halloween candy and costumes each year than our
country does on elections. Keep things in perspective and say “thank you” for
living in a country where your opinion is courted and valued by those in power]
Anyhow . . .
This site began in November of 2004 as a political blog, a
place for me to espouse the strong political opinions I had at the time. I
still have my opinions of course, tempered perhaps by time and maturity, but I
rarely express them here. I’m more comfortable with this blog in its current
incarnation as a more casual, family
friendly destination.
But given the importance of tomorrow’s election, I’m going
to step out of the shadows and give you my two cents.
You heard me say that I’m a partisan voter (nationally at
least) so it’s no surprise then that I’m voting for Mitt Romney. Now, I don’t always vote with enthusiasm (I
thought Dole was the wrong candidate in ’96, and McCain seemed like a default
choice in ’08, nothing more), but in this case, I’m 100% in Mitt’s corner, and
it ISN’T because of the ‘R’ next to his name. Heck, some of it isn’t about
Romney at all, but rather the need to objectively evaluate the current
President and act accordingly.
So that’s the route I’m going to take here; I won’t waste my
breath promoting Romney (although I’m keen to do so), because you’ll just chalk
it up to partisan banter. Assuming you are still on the fence, what’s really
going to change your mind? Party propaganda from either side, or a blunt
evaluation of the situation this country is facing and what the guy in charge
has - or hasn’t - done? Exactly. So here
goes.
Different times call for different Presidential priorities.
But given the clear and present situation that has existed from 2008 to the
present, as well as Obama’s stated goals, I believe it would be foolish to
judge his Presidency on anything more or less than two subjects: the health of
the economy and the War on Terror.
The economy wallows in misery, with unemployment figures
skewed by whole swatches of workers that have abandoned the search for a job or
settled for wages far less than their prior salary. The scary part? Even with
those American’s dropped from the official tally - and I was one of them, so
they do exist, and in droves- the unemployment rate remains steady month after
miserable month. A few months ago Politifact confirmed that we had, at that
time, suffered 43 consecutive months of unemployment over 8%, the longest such
streak since the Great Depression.
It gets worse. The
debt Obama promised to halve has now grown to a record $16 trillion.
Foreclosures abound, in such numbers that here in Milwaukee the police
distributed flyers encouraging people to keep an eye on abandoned property. 47
million Americans – a record number – now depend on Food Stamps to survive.
By any stretch of accountability, Obama’s domestic policy
has failed.
He promises, as he has before, that things will change.
Invest in teachers, he says (‘invest’ being Obama-speak for ‘spend taxpayer
money’) Hiring a kindergarten teacher
may improve our economic strength in 2030, when her charges are in the
workforce, but it does nothing to alleviate the pain of today. He has talked of
making a Cabinet position for ‘Business’,
a ludicrous notion that only reinforces the fact that for Obama
capitalism is something best managed and controlled by bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, he attacks Mitt Romney for the mortal sin of
being successful, more than happy, as always, to divide this nation into
competing camps. Obama’s people have equated success with villainy, and
fostered the bizarre notion that somehow only the mediocre should have claim to
office. It has reared its head in the Wisconsin Senate race as well, where
Tommy Thompson is castigated for the dastardly deed of making money in the
private sector. It’s a notion that is
both asinine and counter-productive. There’s a reason why, at this point, I
should not be placed in a position of guiding a nations economy, that being I am no good at making money. Neither is Obama, a fact we’ve learned the
hard way in the last four years.
On foreign policy Obama gets points for eliminating Osama
Bin Laden, ‘tho I do believe any POTUS would have done the same. He has kept many Bush era policies in place,
a huge plus in my book/a minus against him for liberals. He has often pursued
the War on Terror, at least publicly, by resorting to drone warfare rather than
boots on the ground, and while I disagree with this (collateral damage and a
lack of accountability are my objections) it appears to have had no immediate
backlash. On the other hand his casual
acceptance of/absentee leadership during the Arab Spring showed, IMO, an
alarming lack of common sense, allowing regimes potentially allied against the
US to take power. He has time and again showed a willingness to bow (literally
and figuratively) before Muslim interests, frequently sides against Israel,
seems content to let Iran sit on the back burner unless pushed by the media,
and has been content to let Syria bask in Civil War while inexplicably having
chosen to interfere in Libya’s internal disputes. And how did that new Libyan
regime work out? Oh, yes. Our Embassy was overrun and our Ambassador murdered.
He has not done as bad a job as I feared on foreign policy,
largely because he has kept a number of key Bush policies or motions in play,
and shown himself to be closer to the center on this than advertised in
2008. But ‘not awful’ is not the same as
‘adequate’ or ‘good’.
Once again, if you are undecided look around you. You see a country suffering economically and
holding its own overseas, but with some disturbing trouble on the horizon.
Looking back on the last four years, can you honestly say Obama lived up to his
promises? That his leadership was optimal for this country? That he helped the
economy or strengthened us overseas? Can you honestly say you are better off now
than four years ago?
I know the answer to all of those questions: NO.
Obama had his chance. He failed, and it’s time for new
leadership.
Join me in voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow.
You won’t be sorry.
.jpg)
********
So why Romney? Isn’t he the guy who said he didn’t care
about 47% of the country? Isn’t he a rich guy who said college kids should
borrow money from their [equally poor] parents? As someone who routinely sticks
his foot in his mouth or finds the wrong word slipping out of my mouth, I
refuse to judge someone on a fumbled soundbite What he was saying about the 47%
was true – 47% of the country is on the hook to Obama and therefore, for the purpose of the campaign , not
worth the effort of courting. [by the same token, I doubt Obama is seriously
wooing evangelical Christian gun-owners] That doesn’t equate to “wants to be
President for only the upper half”. As
for the ‘borrow’ comment, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but note that
if he did mean it as stated he was way out of touch, but was certainly
educated after the media backlash.
BTW – I really was eager to promote Romney. I’ve read his
book, and several of his position papers. While I didn’t agree with 100% of
what he espoused I finished the reading with an appreciation for the vision and
integrity of the man. More importantly, he has concrete ideas that are built on
more than empty platitudes and chants of ‘hope/change’. If he is elected, I encourage you to read up
on the man and his ideas. Even if you didn’t vote for him, I think you’ll walk
away with a grudging respect and true hope for the future of America.
*****
If you’re in Wisconsin, another choice should be clear: vote
for Tommy Thompson for US Senate. Frankly, I find it disturbing that such a far
Left candidate as Tammy Baldwin has gained this much traction against the
clearly more qualified Thompson. Vote Tommy!
