Obama versus Romney
Dear Editor:
This is the most emotional and irrational presidential campaign I have ever witnessed. By nature I am a Libertarian; however, I have to choose between a Democrat and Republican, or I will be throwing my vote away.
Many of you may be in the same position. Here are my thoughts on who to vote for.
Simply put, if you want more of the same, vote for Obama. If you want things to change, vote for Romney. Based on personal observations, hundreds of hours of reading books, articles, blogs, etc. these are the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
President Obama is first of all an over-achiever. His credentials alone would have never gotten him the job. His lack of experience in leadership, finance, economics, business, budgeting, foreign affairs and history have hurt this country immeasurably.
His presidency has been one of trial and error, mismanagement and poor communications. He has tried to hide these weaknesses by being ever-present in our lives and communicating his vision of how he would like things to go. He seems to have no clue as to how to get any of these things done. He has accomplished very few of his goals. Good presidents work every bill thru Congress by working with the opposition. This has not been done. As a result we have a divided country. This president's primary strength is his speaking ability and his ability to make people like him in spite of the job he has done.
He has been a non-stop campaigner for his "vision of how things ought to be" but has never really filled in the details. Americans really don't know yet who he is. His birth, upbringing, friends and mentors are the subject of much frustration and debate. The most amazing thing about all of that is that he has managed to achieve what he has. Extreme liberal, socialist, anti-colonial, radical, all these have been used to describe him. He says he is for the "common man," the oppressed, those unable to help themselves. Is that enough? I will let you be the judge.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. His credentials are much more main-stream, visible and evident in nearly everything he does. His birth, family, upbringing and associates are there for all to see or inquire about. What you see is what you get. He has a history of leadership, management, finance, public service and hard work. His main fault is communicating his vision of the future. He has hard goals of reducing the deficit. He also wants to reduce the overall size of government and its interference in our lives.
Looking at his record as governor of Massachusetts he certainly has had some success and some failure in all of those. He also has a record of getting things done and working with the opposition. His opponents say he is greedy, uncaring, and doesn't understand the "common man." I will let you be the judge of that.
The realities of being president are much different than their campaign goals and speeches. Simply put the government almost never shrinks, deficits almost never go away, and a president's success or failure depends on a lot of things that he cannot control. Is the "common man" any better off under either a Democrat or Republican? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Do entitlements get cut or eliminated? No, they don't.
What's different about this election? We are on the verge of some very serious financial challenges that can no longer be ignored. The consequences will be enormous if we don't get our finances under control. We also face enormous security threats from underdeveloped and unstable countries that don't share our values and goals. I can't help but think that this next president will be challenged to the hilt to get things done. I hope you all will make the right choice.
Jim Timmerwilke
Cedaredge
blog comments powered by Disqus