The Case for Mitt Romney
October 15, 2012
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
If I were old enough to vote on November 6th, I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. I’m a Republican and I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. Yet, I could not be happier to advocate for the Romney ticket for the M-A Bear News, because I believe that one of, perhaps the most, important component to a democracy, a democracy filled with ideas and debate, is a well informed electorate. If you’re voting in November, between now and then, it is your responsibility and your duty as an American to read not only our cases for the candidates, but also those readily available around the web. Some of the best and most accessible election coverage and analysis is written by David Brooks of the New York Times, Erza Klein, George Will and Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post, and Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal. If nothing else pick up dad’s (or mom’s) newspaper, tune into Meet the Press or ThisWeek on Sunday, or glance over the CNN homepage sometime before November 6th.
The undecided voters will decide this election, here is the case for Mitt:
Mitt Romney is a bad candidate. He isn’t a mediocre one, or one who has caught a tough break, he is just a bad candidate. He’s quite possibly the worst candidate since George McGovern in 1972, who had one Vice Presidential candidate withdraw and was then turned down by five possible replacements before he finally found a running mate. Romney puts his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, and cannot seem to talk like a normal human being, even if he does have a radio worthy voice.
Romney has committed as many unforced errors as the Oakland Raiders on any given Sunday and seems to given up more yardage early in the 4th quarter on his comments about the “47 percent.” Most polls now show a statistical tie for Obama in the lead, unlike a few weeks ago when some polls leaned Romney’s way.
The situation seems at least worrisome, if not bleak, for Mitt’s team. However, a politician does not a candidate make, and Romney remains the best choice in the race.
Do not be fooled, Romney is not the border closing, gay marriage banning, health care hating man he appears to be while campaigning. Romney is a very smart man, and a closeted moderate who will do anything to win this election. He is, if a bad candidate, an extremely adept politician. He will change his positions on issues in order to win an election or the hearts or the minds of a state as demonstrated when he ran for and served as Governor of the relatively liberal state Massachusetts. He also revealed his penchant for winning during his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital. There, he had one goal: profits for the firm (aka winning).
This adeptness at winning, whether in elections, governing, or business, is exactly what Washington D.C. needs right now. With Congress in a gridlock only surpassed by the traffic on the nearby Capitol Beltway at rush hour, our government is in desperate need of a politician who can make both sides feel like they have won. We recently saw an example of this kind of adeptness, where everyone comes out a winner, with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion on ObamaCare. Just as Roberts appeased both liberals (by upholding ObamaCare) and conservatives (with his ruling on the commerce clause), Romney appeased both conservatives and liberals with RomneyCare in Massachusetts (a conservative solution to longtime liberal cause: universal healthcare). As we saw with the Roberts Court’s ruling, everyone breathed a little easier with the integrity of the government preserved and middle ground found.
Those who discount Romney’s moderate credentials from Massachusetts, based on his recent run to the right, fail to see that when in Massachusetts he moved slightly to the left to appeal to a slightly liberal state, just as he is now moving far-right to appease a far-right base. The difference between the situations is that in Massachusetts he was both elected by and had to govern in a slightly liberal state, while nationally he would be elected by a right-wing base, but would govern over a moderate to slightly conservative nation. If history is a guidebook, Romney will govern as to appeal to most of the nation, with moderate to slightly conservative policies.
Furthermore, Mitt is right for the presidency because he is, quite simply put: a fixer. I don’t need to mention that our nation is in a state of disrepair and chaos. Our national debt is soaring out of control, we are waging a war half way around the world, unemployment is stagnant at best, our education system is dooming us to mediocrity, our entitlements are imploding, and we have the usual foreign policy issues brewing on the back burner (or, lately, roaring like a campfire). But Mitt is a fixer. He salvaged the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from certain collapse, saving the United States from embarrassment on the international stage. As I wrote earlier Mitt had one goal at Bain: profits. However, the success stories that come out of his tenure are examples of instances when both profits and rehabilitating a dying business were in the best interest of Bain. Imagine what Mitt could do, the Harvard Business School case study wizard he is, if he were only given one task: fixing the United States government.
The tasks Romney would face are monumental, but great minds like his are rare. Mitt’s a good man, a family man, a giving man. He’s also a great politician and incredible fixer who happens to be a lousy candidate. The question you have to answer is: what is more important to our nation, a candidate, or a President?
For more information on Romney’s stances on the issues click HERE.