Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Endorsement: For Mitt Romney


It has been a long two years since I last posted.

In the past two years, I have watched the progress of this years' political 
campaign with a mixture of bemusement and dismay.

Who can forget the "clown show" that was the "Parade of Candidates" 
of the Republican primary season?

Michelle Bachmann? No Way. Herman Cain? You've got to be
kidding. I think his comments about farmer-devouring 
chickens did him in. 

Let's hear it for those carnivorous Rhode Island Reds!

And Rick Perry? Right experience - Texas Governor, C-130 Hercules 
pilot - but Rick, if you're going to cut government departments if elected, 
it helps to remember just which departments you intend to cut.

And Newt? You are an American Winston Churchill - a hundred ideas 
at once, of which any two or three are good. Add in also 
Churchillian rhetorical skills. But, your habit of marrying serial 
mistresses isn't exactly a Presidential skill; we're looking for a 
President here, not an American Dominique Strauss-Khan.

And a colony on the moon? That's where some folks would like to 
send you - permanently.

But then, one man emerged out of all this, a man with the right 
experience and the right program to put the country back on course.

That man is Mitt Romney.

Now, Mitt is not perfect. A "Tribune Of The People" he is not - he is , 
in fact, an unapologetic believer in "The One Percent", of which he is a 
splendid example. From his wife's tax-deductible Dancing Olympic Horse
to his vast and extensive offshore holdings in tax-favored jurisdictions, 
he is a modern global plutocrat - using very advantage, edge, dodge 
and shelter possible to preserve and expand his privileged position.

But does this disqualify him? Not at all. Because if "plutocratic 
wealth" were a disqualifier for office, President Kennedy, both 
Presidents Roosevelt, both Presidents Bush, as well as 
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would all have 
been ineligible.

And you can't tell me (especially in the case of Kennedy and 
the Roosevelts), that they didn't use every available trick in 
the book back in their day to preserve and expand their wealth.

When looking for a President, wealth shouldn't be the issue;
it should be Character, Culture, Substance, Experience, and the 
DETAILS of what he plans to do in office.

But on Character, Culture and Substance,  Mitt's handicapped. 
The incumbent President is hip and cool. He hosts Beyonce and 
Kanye West in the White House. He plays basketball on the 
White House court with NBA stars. He appears on Letterman, 
Leno, and Saturday Night Live. He Texts. He Tweets.

Between his Blackberry and his iPad, he's cool, contemporary, 
and utterly up-to-date. He's In Touch

In our digital, iPhoned and iPadded world, that equates to 
Character, Culture, and Substance.

And Mitt?  Doesn't have a cell phone. Doesn't use a laptop or PC. 
Doesn't need to.
He has subordinates and assistants who do all that "tech stuff" 
for him. 

An entire platoon of scribes writes his speeches, position papers, 
and memos for him. Another group tweaks the spreadsheets
 and comes up with "The Numbers".

A dedicated assistant does all his texting and tweeting.  
And the sole task of yet another assistant is to carry all the 
cell phones, screen the incoming calls, and dial the outgoing 
calls for him.

But while Mitt's stilted, somewhat jarring 
Gordon Gekko-meets-Ward Cleaver persona doesn't exactly 
translate to the digital age, it does reflect exactly who he is;
an early-sixtyish major-enterprise CEO who is running his 
campaign like a CEO - not a politician.

Trust me - there isn't a Global Fortune 500 CEO anywhere 
that doesn't identify with  Mitt's style and the way he has organized 
his campaign..

And while a man who thinks Perry Como, The Andrews Sisters
and Lou Rawls are current cultural icons might need some cultural
help, Mitt's uber-square persona DOES resonate with the folks who 
will decide this election. 

And here I'm not talking about the Bible thumpers, snake handlers, 
economic cranks and early-onset-dementia patients who make 
up much of the Republican base.

No - I'm talking about the entrepreneurs, proprietors, and 
small-business people who are the bulk of the nations' Productive 
sector and who provide over 80% of the nations JOBS.  

I'm talking about the serious corporate and academic leaders 
who understand that if we don't get a handle on the nation's debt and 
deficit  problems, we won't go the way of Japan or Greece - 
it will most likely be something worse.

And four more years of Barack Obama, with a tidal wave of 
"Regulation-For-Regulation's-Sake" coming up with Obamacare, 
Dodd-Frank, and a host of other liberal-left "priorities" is going 
to make an economic recovery not just difficult but impossible.

And like James Carville said twenty years ago, the ONLY issue
today is "It's The Economy, Stupid".

And the ONLY WAY to restore a healthy, full-employment economy is 
to enact the Energy, Entitlement,Regulatory, Spending and Budgetary 
reforms that will make this economy competitive again.

And the global economy IS competitive - too many people forget 
that while Investment Capital and the investors and CEO's 
who control it are mobile, governments and peoples are not.

And attracting and retaining Investment Capital takes a visionary 
CEO - not a politician.

And while "Trickle-Down Economics" might be discredited today,  
serious peopleagree that the only thing worse is "Trickle-Down 
Government".

The choice is stark; we can have the Government-Centered Economy 
of Barack  Obama, or we can return to a competitive economy of Free Markets 
run by a free people.

Vote Romney/Ryan on November 6.


3 comments:

  1. On character, culture, and substance, I would agree that Obama has the hip/cool edge. But, as to character he is a negative, and no detectable substance clothes his reign. Romney's character seems unimpeachable. Romney's substance is outlined but specifics are deferred to await circumstances and negotiation. Wise.

    BTW, you failed to mention the defunct British Empire as a foreshadowing of our future. A hundred years ago, the British were where we are now and we became the creditors. Maybe the 21st is the Chinese century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would both agree and disagree.

      I would disagree that no "substance" of the type you describe clothes Mr. Obama. Quite the contrary, his "substance" of the type you refer to is the "Fabian Socialism" that was prevalent in Nehru India as well as his native Kenya. As you infer, both circumstances and politics have moved him away from his preferred ideological stance, as it has with Mr Romney.

      My greatest fear, should Mr. Romney be elected, is that he will not govern as a Reagan-type principled conservative who will negotiate as necessary in order to get things done. Rather, as he is remarkably principles-and-values free (he sells this as "pragmatism"), he will be hugely pressure-prone to both the most reactionary elements of his own party as well as those of the other side, should they regain a Congressional majority during his rule. It is worth noting, though, that the same criticism applies equally to Mr Obama, whose "pragmatism" masks a similar distaste for concrete principles and an excessive willingness to compromise..

      Delete
  2. You have shared the information in such a way that i like it and wanted to share it on my wall
    out door furniture nz and i was going to share it on my wall.

    ReplyDelete