Listen. Politics are stupid. But I have something to say.
Okay, several somethings.
Obama is not the devil.
I don't care if he is Muslim...it doesn't matter to me.
I don't believe he is trying to take down America.
I don't care if he was born in Hawaii or Hati.
Doesn't matter.
What does matter is that while Obama may be a nice guy he is not a good President.
He doesn't know what he is doing and he doesn't know how to make things happen.
Plus, I do believe his ideas are fundamentally wrong.
Mitt Romney is not a god.
I don't care if he is Mormon....it doesn't matter to me.
I don't believe he only cares about rich people.
I don't care if he was born in Mexico or Michigan.
Doesn't matter.
What does matter is that while Mitt Romney may seem like an "out of touch with the little man" kind of guy, he would make a fantastic President.
He knows what he is doing and he knows how to make things happen and he has a very impressive track record to prove it.
Plus, his ideas are quite good.
I have never been so certain that a man as President can actually make good things happen for our country.
Then I read this by Ann Romney, Mitt Romney's wife:
“Four years ago, I was definite about one thing: I would never do it again,” she said of her husband’s failed 2008 campaign. “Mitt said, you say that after every pregnancy. All the women out there know what I’m talking about.”
When he broached the subject again, she said she was reluctant. Before she was going to endure another campaign, she asked him to answer one question: “Can you fix it?” When he answered yes, she was in.“
"He has the ability to find the core of the problem and then figure out how to fix it,” said Ann Romney.http://americaisconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/ann-romney-makes-difference-in-florida.html
Can you fix it? .... Yes.
America, if you're smart you will vote for Mitt Romney.
He is our only hope for this sinking ship.
14 comments:
Amen!
A friend of mine lived in Massachusetts and Mitt was her families Stake President. Her two brothers got into a car accident which left them quadriplegics, Mitt showed up at their home with Stereos, big screen TVs and a lot of other gifts for these boys. He is extremely generous and a very good guy!!!
Amen and very well said. I feel the same way and you put my thoughts to words perfectly. Thank you.
Totally agree with this! Well said, and all very logical.
Amen, my dear! Well said!
This was a great blog post.
I just don't think the ship is sinking...
On Mitt Romney's character....
In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help... find Gay's daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York , and asked them to help find his friend's missing daughter. Romney's accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put flyers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could- prostitutes, drug addicts, anyone. That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey , where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney's former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter's life, saying, "It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this to the day I die."
Mitt Romney sees a problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it. He doesn't do it for self-aggrandizement or for personal gain. He does it because that's just how he's wired.
When Romney was asked by his old employer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue the firm from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company for an annual salary of one dollar. When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, he accepted no salary for the three years, and wouldn't use an expense account. He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts.
I like Romney and Obama. I've read books by both of them and countless articles by supporters and detractors. Politics would have us believe that every election is battle between good and evil, but from what I've read, they are probably the two most similar candidates to ever run against one another. They both put pragmatism over ideology, and they both approach problems with slow, considerate analysis. Where I give Obama the edge is in experience. No experience can compete with four years of actually being president. I don't think he has worked magic, but I think it's silly to expect that of any president, but he has led us through the most challenging time in recent history. And I think he's had some successes too. Of course, if you've already made your mind up about it him, then any success can be discounted. But if you look past the Democratic/Republican thing, there's ample evidence that he's still the best man for the job.
Andrew Sullivan makes the case better than I could: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
The true test of our country will be this years election. If you want to work, be self sufficient and be successful, then Romney is the man. If you want the government to meet your every need, then Obama is the man. Personally I prefer to support myself and hold others accountable for supporting themselves as well. I believe Mitt will promote our self reliance and in doing so will be build the collective self esteem of the entire country. We will all be happier and more successful when we work to provide for ourselves, right Dixie?
Dixie,
I love your bravery at commenting on a political view. If there is anything I've learned about reading too much Washington Post and New York Times, it is that people are rarely kind in their thoughts towards others' political views (disagreement=you are not as well read=you read different things than me=what you read must be flawed and what I read is not).
I do think that Mitt will play the centrist roll in ways to keep government moving, whereas I'd rather have a Ron Paul visionary, to be honest (I just don't think any of his ideas would actually get through the Legislature).
Still, if I do vote for Romney, it will be because I still believe it is in his ability to lead that he is most convincing. I worry that there is so much vitriol in his direction that he will simply be seen as unelectable, but that is the media's job in a way, and there is time for him to repair his image if he makes it through the primaries.
In my view, Obama's leadership is too divisive to be called leadership, and while many claim he has centrist positions, it has hard for me to truly believe that when it comes to the spending patterns that have occurred and the programs he supports (I am a big believer that compelled charity isn't charitable, and that Americans sell each other short when they don't allow opportunities for real charity to happen).
I know it is modern to say that a Keynesian view is a modern view, but I am still uncertain (despite the success of GM, which I admit seems to be a victory for Obama. However, what I think success with GM proves is that government CAN tinker with business and get it right, and that this will lead to government believing that they SHOULD tinker with business more often).
The current president hasn't passed a budget in 3 years...so from that standpoint I think he isn't centrist enough.
Dixie,
I love your bravery at commenting on a political view. If there is anything I've learned about reading too much Washington Post and New York Times, it is that people are rarely kind in their thoughts towards others' political views (disagreement=you are not as well read=you read different things than me=what you read must be flawed and what I read is not).
I do think that Mitt will play the centrist roll in ways to keep government moving, whereas I'd rather have a Ron Paul visionary, to be honest (I just don't think any of his ideas would actually get through the Legislature).
Still, if I do vote for Romney, it will be because I still believe it is in his ability to lead that he is most convincing. I worry that there is so much vitriol in his direction that he will simply be seen as unelectable, but that is the media's job in a way, and there is time for him to repair his image if he makes it through the primaries.
In my view, Obama's leadership is too divisive to be called leadership, and while many claim he has centrist positions, it has hard for me to truly believe that when it comes to the spending patterns that have occurred and the programs he supports (I am a big believer that compelled charity isn't charitable, and that Americans sell each other short when they don't allow opportunities for real charity to happen).
I know it is modern to say that a Keynesian view is a modern view, but I am still uncertain (despite the success of GM, which I admit seems to be a victory for Obama. However, what I think success with GM proves is that government CAN tinker with business and get it right, and that this will lead to government believing that they SHOULD tinker with business more often).
The current president hasn't passed a budget in 3 years...so from that standpoint I think he isn't centrist enough.
Dixie,
I love your bravery at commenting on a political view. If there is anything I've learned about reading too much Washington Post and New York Times, it is that people are rarely kind in their thoughts towards others' political views (disagreement=you are not as well read=you read different things than me=what you read must be flawed and what I read is not).
I do think that Mitt will play the centrist roll in ways to keep government moving, whereas I'd rather have a Ron Paul visionary, to be honest (I just don't think any of his ideas would actually get through the Legislature).
Still, if I do vote for Romney, it will be because I still believe it is in his ability to lead that he is most convincing. I worry that there is so much vitriol in his direction that he will simply be seen as unelectable, but that is the media's job in a way, and there is time for him to repair his image if he makes it through the primaries.
In my view, Obama's leadership is too divisive to be called leadership, and while many claim he has centrist positions, it has hard for me to truly believe that when it comes to the spending patterns that have occurred and the programs he supports (I am a big believer that compelled charity isn't charitable, and that Americans sell each other short when they don't allow opportunities for real charity to happen).
I know it is modern to say that a Keynesian view is a modern view, but I am still uncertain (despite the success of GM, which I admit seems to be a victory for Obama. However, what I think success with GM proves is that government CAN tinker with business and get it right, and that this will lead to government believing that they SHOULD tinker with business more often).
The current president hasn't passed a budget in 3 years...so from that standpoint I think he isn't centrist enough.
Dixie,
I love your bravery at commenting on a political view. If there is anything I've learned about reading too much Washington Post and New York Times, it is that people are rarely kind in their thoughts towards others' political views (disagreement=you are not as well read=you read different things than me=what you read must be flawed and what I read is not).
I do think that Mitt will play the centrist roll in ways to keep government moving, whereas I'd rather have a Ron Paul visionary, to be honest (I just don't think any of his ideas would actually get through the Legislature).
Still, if I do vote for Romney, it will be because I still believe it is in his ability to lead that he is most convincing. I worry that there is so much vitriol in his direction that he will simply be seen as unelectable, but that is the media's job in a way, and there is time for him to repair his image if he makes it through the primaries.
In my view, Obama's leadership is too divisive to be called leadership, and while many claim he has centrist positions, it has hard for me to truly believe that when it comes to the spending patterns that have occurred and the programs he supports (I am a big believer that compelled charity isn't charitable, and that Americans sell each other short when they don't allow opportunities for real charity to happen).
I know it is modern to say that a Keynesian view is a modern view, but I am still uncertain (despite the success of GM, which I admit seems to be a victory for Obama. However, what I think success with GM proves is that government CAN tinker with business and get it right, and that this will lead to government believing that they SHOULD tinker with business more often).
The current president hasn't passed a budget in 3 years...so from that standpoint I think he isn't centrist enough.
Post a Comment