Mitt Romney Without Spots

What would you think of Mitt Romney were he to toss over board the social conservative issues and the “save the rich” banners?  If you are for him now, would you look for someone else?  If you were not a supporter, would you give him a try?

Here’s my take.

President Obama has been an honest and dignified President. He does not inspire confidence that term 2 will be much different.

He inherited an awful situation with the economy and with foreign policy.  The Federal deficits were already baked into government accounting.  And diabolically, the GOP strategy of saying “no” to everything made compromise impossible.  The President’s term has been doomed from the start.

Unemployment and economic growth are both struggling.  Questions abound on what more could (should) President Obama have done?  Voters are left with the tough call.  Was there anything President Obama could have done?  Or, did President Obama do all that could have been done?

Along comes Mitt Romney.  He is a very successful business person who exudes executive confidence.  “President Obama has been a failure, I can fix the economy”, he says.  If one focuses only on that question, the race will be a photo finish.  There is no reason to believe President Obama will suddenly find new methods to deal with the economy or unemployment in term 2.  It will be a leap of faith to switch to Romney, but if the current President is not a sure bet, why not take a chance.

The reason to hesitate is called “baggage”.  What will America get in addition to Mitt Romney’s business acumen?

The middle class should get used to paying more for government services like Medicare as well as financing the government to a greater percent.  The gap between the rich and everyone else will continue to increase.  The top 2% and especially the top 1/2 of 1% will enjoy no less than the current Bush tax cuts and may get more.  And if you are Hispanic, a woman, or a homosexual, you can take a seat.  There will be little recognition of your humanity and no advancement of your individual rights during a Romney Presidency.

Polls indicate that this possibility is sinking in.  In key “battleground” States (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida), President Obama has opened a lead.  It is still early and things could change dramatically.

But what if Romney shed his spots.  What if Romney said “I will support ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  I will invite reform of health care as a method of getting control of Medicare and Medicaid costs under control.  I will fully support equal rights for all Americans even though I will privately follow my own religious beliefs.  I will support your right to hold your religious beliefs but I will not support your right to force your beliefs on anyone else.   And, while I will trim excessive government regulations, I will promise to protect workers, rivers, air, and the outdoors.

Dreaming?  Sure, but Romney would deserve a second look if he did.

 

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party

Tags: , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

10 Comments on “Mitt Romney Without Spots”

  1. J. Palmer Says:

    Interesting take. We can always dream.

  2. List of X Says:

    Sure, Romney could say that, as he would say anything to get elected. But Romney has little to gain and much to lose by pretending to be another Barack Obama, even if he’s actually not that far to the right of Obama.


    • Both parties are cursed with a similar affliction. Here’s my “program” (like aid to education or increasing Medicare coverage or increasing Medicaid rolls, of the GOP, increasing defense spending, aid to oil, or reducing taxes) but there is no way to pay for them and worse, no way to see if they are working… With this year’s brand of conservative Republicanism, we will get a healthy dose of save the rich and conservative social values. Not a wise trade off, even if the alternative is no a sure fire winner, I think…

      • List of X Says:

        I think the parties afflictions are different: Democrats are unable or afraid to face the reality, and Republicans are completely detached from it.


  3. X, agree to a degree… What you say is what we observe… but… the real problem is the personal wealth that either party member can obtain while in office… I think this drives the behaviors we see…

    • List of X Says:

      It’s a problem that some elected officials see the office as a way to get richer, but it’s not the main problem. The insider trading and bribery laws apply to them just as they do to everyone else. The problem is that those officials have to constantly campaign for donations and become beholden to their largest donors, and this is the type of legal bribery that should not be legal.


      • X, while I don’t disagree that too many politicians become beholding to their donors, I would still emphasize the personal wealth accumulation trait which is common in most of us as the underlying problem. Term limits would go a long way to curbing this.

      • List of X Says:

        Or term limits will encourage those elected officials to grab as much wealth they could get during their limited terms.


  4. X, what a hoot… you may be right… it would be a redistribution of wealth on a national scale…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: