Mitt Romney was giving the country a chance. He had stated that he was going to enforce the existing immigration laws, thus making our immigration policy rational. He also said he was going to “fix the economy.”
But he needed the Hispanic vote, so he moderated his immigration policy to a policy that is confusing mess.
Romney is, in the end, a salesman and a deal maker. He had been running his campaign saying whatever needs to be said to make the sale and close the deal.
The hope with Romney supporters was that once in power, he would flip-flop again and be the rational political leader he was as Massachusetts Governor.
But this hope, in the face of what Romney had been saying, hadn’t been enough. People were thinking that perhaps a bird in the hand – even though this bird would bankrupt the country and flood it will illegal immigrants – was better than two birds in the bush.
Romney is also a brilliant businessman. The hope was that he knew something about economics — which apparently few in Washington do. The hope was that he would straighten the country out and steer it away from Obama’s cliff.
However the Tea Party and its fellow irrational extremists — a.k.a., “the Re-elect Obama Party” — pulled Romney so far to the right that, again, his policies were incomprehensible and confusing.
I mean, he publicly said in the primary debate that he would not raise taxes even if $10 were cut in expenditures for every $1 in tax raised!!?
Then Romney wants to cut taxes – even more – for the rich, while cutting benefits for the lower classes. Even if this would be economically beneficial to the country, emotionally it is indigestible.
Also Romney may have been ethically challenged when — if the democratic attack ads were accuate — he went into small town and essentially destroyed successful factories (called “cash cows”) in order to make a profit. According to laid-off workers, Romney and his partners, bought well functioning and profitable businesses; took out loans based on the equity of the business; pocketed the money; made the business pay back the loans, which drove the business into bankrupcy; laid off the workers; and crushed the economic base of the town, which devestated its culture. Then onto the next business.
This historical experiences shows again that the base of all politics and economics as morality. With unethical behavior, nothing works.
Finally, with a perhaps self destructive drive, Romney picked up a Tea Party hammer and nail, and put another nail in the coffin of his campaign. He picked Paul Ryan!?
I mean, Romney was supposed to be so smart!! And cautious, analytical, and thoughtful! He couldn’t see that Ryan was committed to trade in future seniors Medicare health security for a voucher, which they could then bargain with profit-oriented insurance companies for their health care in their last years of life? Romney couldn’t he see that this could turn off senior citizens??
Perhaps he just wanted to energize the conservative base with Ryan, just as McCain energized it with Sarah Palin.
He who doesn’t understand history, is doomed to repeat it.
But couldn’t Romney see that the senior citizens were a big part of that conservative base?
Then to top it off, Romney made the private statement that the lower 47% of income earners were dependent on the government and didn’t take personal responsibility for themselves.
Obviously, this was a misstatement, made without thinking. Romney couldn’thave meant that all the government workers, all the military, all retired Americans, and all the hard working Americans working for low wages didn’t take responsibility for themselves.
What he really meant – I believe – is that 47% of Americans, who don’t pay federal income tax, don’t really care that much about the bloated federal budget, the federal deficit, or the federal debt. They don’t pay for it. The top 53% pay for it.
But to make matters worse, Romney didn’t, correct himself and explain himself. Everyone understands that politicians misspeak. But Romney stood by his statements, no doubt, at the advice of his political advisors.
Thus many people in the 47% felt that Romney insulted them, and they felt that Romney wasn’t on their side. And how can you vote for someone who insults you and doesn’t support you?
So, many voters have closed their eyes to future $1 trillion dollar deficits, open borders, and Obama’s financial cliff, and switched their vote to Obama.
But voters still have a choice. You can write in “RG Martin” on your ballot. It won’t win the election, but you can have the peace of mind that you didn’t participate in the economic deterioration of the country.
Leave a Reply