The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense

“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Why Mitt “Obama-Lite” Romney Is Not The Best Choice To Win Against Obama

Here’s the Nonsense:  Mitt Romney is the best candidate to beat President Obama in the next election because there is such a stark contrast between them.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Mitt Romney may have it all over President Obama when it comes to successful business experience.  But there’s a reason he’s known as Obama-lite that should make voters take pause before they choose him as the GOP nominee.

Before he was elected, didn’t Barack Obama claim that his administration would be transparent beyond what we’d seen from other presidents?  But since taking office we’ve seen no such thing.  Even the press, the very people who supported him and covered for him with softball questions, lies, and false accusations against his competitors, have complained that this administration is too secretive.  In fact, wasn’t it this administration that gave themselves an award for transparency but kept the ceremony closed?

Now it’s time for another election and here come the GOP candidates.  The establishment Republicans are pushing Mitt Romney as the answer to everything.  Supposedly he is the only one who can win against Obama.  I’ve heard politicians and pundits on the right make these claims.  (Ironically, the Democrats and the media say the same thing… that should give anyone with half an ounce of sense some pause.)  Any other candidate that gets to the top of the polls to challenge Romney is attacked viciously, often with no real logic and only impassioned emotional pleas.

There is this mindset among the establishment Republicans that follows one of two paths:  
  1. Either they say that Romney is really a closet conservative who has just been fooling everyone for years by claiming  he’s a moderate.  That, they say, has allowed him to get elected as a Republican in the blue state of Massachusetts even though he's a true conservative.  
  2. Or they say that Romney is the only one who can win because he’s a moderate and moderate voters will insist on someone who is close to Obama on the issues to beat him. 

The fact is that if he’s a closet conservative and has just been claiming to be a moderate until now then I have to ask why anyone would vote for such a dishonest person?  If he couldn’t be honest about who he is and he was deceptive just to win an election, then why should we believe that he’s not being deceptive now?

On the other hand, if he’s in the center and close to Obama on the issues, then why would someone choose something so close to what we already have as president right now? Polls say the American electorate are fed up with the way this country is headed and they want change.  Why would they vote for a change from one thing to something that’s close to what they already have?  Why wouldn’t it be the most opportune time for someone with dramatically different positions on the issues?  I spent much of my life in business and the easiest sale to make to anyone was when they were fed up with a competitor who offered something dramatically different than what I offered and they wanted out.  If what I offered was close to what someone who had disappointed them had given them, then it was very hard to get them to change.  There’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be the same when voters are choosing a new president.

But let’s look at a couple of examples starting with the one I brought up at the beginning of this post.

President Obama claimed he’d have a very transparent administration and yet he has had just the opposite.  And this doesn’t sit well with the American people.  We are a country that is supposed have elected officials who are accountable to the public, yet we get secrecy instead.  While Mitt Romney has not made such claims for what his administration would do if elected to the presidency, we can simply look at what he did as governor of Massachusetts and get a good idea what he’d be like.

In a recent story in the Washington Post we learned that Romney’s staff spent big dollars making sure that records of his administration as governor were removed.  It was reported that he spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor in 2007.  While it was legal, they said this was unprecedented in state history.  The Washington Post went on to say that 11 of Romney’s aides “bought the hard drives from their state-issued computers for themselves.”  The governor’s staff also had emails and other electronic communications wiped from state servers, according to the report.

So here we have another politician keeping things secret from the public.  Sure, it might be legal, but it doesn’t make it right.  Ethics are above laws.  Ethics demand a higher standard than laws do.  What is ethically right is more important than what is legally right.

Keeping secrets sounds a lot like the kind of thing we’re seeing from the current administration.  But if that’s not enough let me leave you with a couple of other thoughts about Romney’s similarity to Obama so you can see that choosing Romney as the nominee would make it very easy for Obama to win the election. 

You’ve heard it said over and over again that Romney would have to live down Romneycare because it was the blueprint for Obamacare.  Romney has tried to dodge the question by saying that it’s okay for a state to make that decision and force their citizens to purchase health insurance, but it’s not okay for the federal government to do it.  That argument doesn’t work.  Even if it should be a state’s issue, the fact that he’d support the idea that ANY level of government, local, state, or federal, could force citizens to purchase anything is a scary thought.  It doesn’t take much to extrapolate an idea from one level of government to another.  His stand needs to be that it was a mistake and should not have been done at any level.  American citizens should not be told by government to purchase anything, no matter what level of government is making the demand.

The fact that Romney supports the idea that it’s okay for the states to do it is very weak, but weakness is what you should expect from a moderate.  And when you add to that the fact that 3 of his advisors went to the Obama White House on 12 different occasions to help them in their development and implementation plans for Obamacare, that seals the deal for me that he’s just dancing on the question to get around it and get elected.  He is doing nothing different than Obama would do if he were cornered on an issue.

And one last thing.  Have you noticed that Romney refuses to admit it was a mistake?  Someone who cannot admit that they were wrong has an ego driving their narcissism that is very reminiscent of our current president.  And the ego we currently have in the White House has gotten us into such a mess that we can’t afford four more years of this nonsense.