The Case for Mitt Romney
It certainly should not come as a surprise that I am endorsing Governor Romney for President. There is no doubt that I lean to the right side of the political aisle and considering my last two endorsements went to the Republican candidate, it is hardly a surprise. However, to my defense, my political views are varied throughout the years. I will admit voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000.
However, as the world changed post 9/11, my awareness of world events has deepened and for a myriad of reasons I find myself much more aligned with the GOP. These reasons run from the economy to foreign policy.
That being said, here are some reasons why I believe Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States:
1. "It's the economy, stupid"
There is no question the economy is the main issue for the majority of Americans. Even if you accept that the entire economic crash was due to former President Bush (which, as I'll explain, is far from accurate), the fact of the matter is that President Obama has now had 4 years to fix it and it's only only gotten worse. When elected in 2008, Obama stated two very specific points. One was that it was unpatriotic and irresponsible to have a $4 trillion dollar debt over 8 years. He also said that if he busted the budget as recklessly as Bush did, he would be a "one-term" president.
Well, he has busted the budget to the tune of an additional $6 trillion over 4 years, with estimates of a $20 trillion deficit by 2020. In addition, unemployment today is 7.8% and only that low because so many people have stopped looking for employment. I can site numerous measures and stats to back all of this up. But simply ask your neighbors and friends if they are better off today than 4 years ago. When food prices are skyrocketing, gasoline prices are 200% higher than in '08, food stamp recipients are up 50% and interest rates are purposely kept as low as possible, who is getting hurt the most? Of you answered anything but the middle class, you're sadly mistaken.
The option is to continue on the path Obama promised would change things for the better, and give him an additional 4 years to do the same things he's done (or not done), or give the job to someone who has a proven record of economic success.
2. "Are we safe?"
Four years ago, Mr. Obama pledged, along with all the other candidates (except Ron Paul) that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapons under his leadership. He took a very bold, albeit safe stance on the issue. We are now 4 years ahead and while Iran has yet to successful create a bomb, they are also much, much closer to it. Obama believed that his personality and his being a healer would convince the Ayatollahs to give up this folly. And soon after, when it was obvious to everyone that they rigged their Presidential elections, which sent thousands of Iranian students out in the street in protest, Obama mostly stayed in the background, assumed betting on the government to withstand the protests (which would show the Ayatollahs good faith in negotiations.
So while these protesters were shot in the street, and they cried out for America's help, Obama sat silent (aside for a toothless condemnation). Had the President acted like a man, like a Reagan, or even a JFK, the message to the Ayatollahs would be clear that the US means business. Instead, it became sadly apparent that the relationships between the US and her solid allies became very reversed. first, his canceling the missile defense shield to Poland, promised by the previous administration was given up to appease Russia, even though the purpose was to stop Iran. Then, Obama sided against the rule of law in Honduras, in their legal move to remove their president, who had been grabbing power he is constitutionally not entitled to. The Honduras Supreme Court ruled that the President must be removed from office. A majority of Hondurans supported the measure. However, US President Barack Obama weighed in an threatened the nation of Honduras with crippling sanctions if they do not reinstate a man the Hondurans consider a dictator - who by the way is the closest friend to Hugo Chavez.
And yet, this pales in comparison to how he treated his closest allies. His consistent condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu - from sending him out via the back door, by the trash cans, to his snubbing him for dinner during a state dinner, to his nasty comments to Sarkozy to Obama's changing the rules of land-swap agreements that had been the basis for a peace settlement. Obama has continuously demanded concessions from Israel, without any progress from the Palestinians. His one-sided approach to dealing with Israel has, more than any action, destroyed any hope for a two-state solution.
And even that pales to what he did in Egypt. Anyone with eyes and a sense of history knew that taking down Mubarak would hand the Muslim Brotherhood the keys to the country. While Democratic leaders, such as Obama and Nancy Pelosi were praising the democracy on the streets, they washed away the reality that this who situation was carefully planned and executed by the Brotherhood. Their intention was to overthrow Egypt when they assassinated Anwar Sadat. But with American friendship, Mubarak was too strong for them to conquer. So instead they had a leader who kept the peace with Israel, was a strategic ally who saw to the Suez Canal remain open and free and kept the Islamists at bay in a mostly secular country.
But within days, Obama went from backing him up to stabbing the ally in the back. Once Obama abandoned Mubarak, he was done and as many of us expected, Egypt has turned into an anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian Islamic cesspool of violence against their own people - especially women. You want to see a real war on women? Take a look at the people Obama has been forging alliances with.
Of course, you can add Quaddafi to this list as well. He was no saint, but when he realized Bush was serious about fighting the war of terror, Quaddafi changed his tune, removed his WMDs and started behaving. How was he repaid? I think you know the answer to that. Here too was the Muslim brotherhood initiating a so-called freedom movement that simply turned out to be the way for them to overtake the country. And this time he did it with missiles and rockets that defied the American War Powers act.
3. "Who do you trust?"
In the latest Presidential debate, President Obama said that the key to this election comes down to "who do you trust?' For the past year, Obama has painted this picture of Romney as a Wall-Street fat cat, who lives high in the hog as the regular working class schmo slaves away for pennies. This kind of populist campaigning is not new and in fact has been a common theme is presidential politics since Andrew Jackson's time. At times, it has been very successful (look up "Tippecanoe and Tyler too!"). But for it to work, you need to be believable in your self assessment. Yes, Mitt Romney is wealthy. Now, in all honesty, President Obama is not a poor man. The difference in the two is that while Romney has made his money in business, Obama has made his mostly as a politician, paid by the public dole. Yes, he made a lot of money as an author. But his books would have never sold had he not been a politician, especially President.
When you consider the two top issues facing the country today - the economy and foreign affairs - there should be a clear cut answer. Do you trust someone who for 4 years has not only not improved the economy, but has in fact made it worse? Do you trust a man who saw to the first credit downgrade in American history? Do you trust a man who bailed out an industry on the backs of the bondholders who where illegally passed over by his union friends? Do you trust a man to create a universal health care plan that not only hasn't anyone really read it, but has never polled higher than 40%? Do you trust a man who while Benghazi was attacked and the Ambassador killed, decided to lie to the UN and to the American viewers that this was all caused by a YouTube video no one has seen? Do you trust a man who, while he may not have used the word "apology", went to numerous countries confessing our so-called sins, without also lauding the incredible accomplishments this country has made for world peace? Do you trust the judgement of a man who before knowing any facts proclaimed that the Cambridge Police Department acted "stupidly"?
Or do you trust a man who was a very successful businessman, community leader, former Church leader, father of five men who are all honest, decent and hardworking? Someone who has balanced budgets and has successfully worked with the other party to get things done.
Look, I'm not saying Romney is perfect and not made mistakes. The question is who do you trust? President Obama has shown us all what the next 4 years will look like. We know that these next four years will be no different than the last four, and quite possibly - for many - much worse. We've seem what is happening in Greece when the money runs out. We've seen what is happening in Iran as they are 4 years closer to an atomic weapon. We've see what has happened in Egypt and Libya while Obama attends another celebrity fund raiser.
The question is less "who do you trust" and much more "how can you continue to trust him?"
Sure, you can cite this so-called war on women. Or you can scream that voting against Obama is somehow racist. Personally, if you want to see an improvement in race relations, you will vote for Romney. The reason is it will truly show we are a colorblind society if we vote out the first black President. I still don't understand why is racist to vote for Romney because he's white, but not racist to vote for Obama because he's black. Of course, most of us true conservatives do not see the world through a racial prism.
There is a stark contrast between the two candidates. One is serious about running the country for the benefit of the American people. One is more concerned with fund raisers with Hollywood stars. One will spend his available hours trying to fix the problems that ails us. The other had to be taken from the golf links when it was time for a photo op in the situation room. One is truly an adult running for the most responsible and intense job in the world. The other is putting out commercials likening voting to losing her virginity. This is not a serious man. And to consider that Joe Biden will remain a heartbeat from the Oval office is likewise frightening. If these last 4 years have shown us anything, it's that Biden has either the onset of Alzheimer's, or truly is the least intelligent VP we've ever had.
This election is not Obama vs. Bush and it isn't 2008 anymore. The President is no longer an unknown. He has a record now. And the failure of that record is the exact reason the Democrats are pushing this war on women, or this moral outrage over some congressman saying life begins at conception. It's the reason the media has been so mum about a terrorist attack that killed 4 of out finest. It's the reason the administration wants to badly to put the blame on either a stupid video or on Romney's (correct) response. Anything to not embarrass the president or his chances at re-election.
That is not a serious man and is an excellent reason not to trust the President with 4 more years. On the other side, perhaps it will take another 4 years before he comes clean about "Fast and Furious," which resulted in hundreds of deaths in the US and Mexico. Perhaps it will take him 4 more years to come clean about Benghazi. The American people deserve honesty and transparency. Obama promised transparency.
If he is willing to lie about that, how can we trust with with anything else?