I think it’s reasonable to assume that the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was speaking of Mitt Romney when he said, “He who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.”
Unfortunately, prophetic abilities of the Founding Fathers is not the topic I wish to discuss today. This is an argument for Americans who aren’t necessarily Obama supporters (or may not even identify with liberal beliefs), but still have the best interest of their country in mind.
People who believe Obama failed in his presidency, either do not understand the magnitude of the crisis he inherited, or held incredibly unrealistic expectations. Four years is not nearly enough time to reverse the damage created by the Bush administration. It took Bush eight years to create this mess, it’s only makes sense we give Obama another four to clean it up. Obama took office during an impossible time, and his critics tend to focus on the things he could not fix, or has not yet fixed, rather than all that he has. But I suppose that’s just human nature.
No doubt a number of these disillusioned Obama supporters made conclusions something along the lines of, “Well, he’s not great, but he’s a hell of a lot more competent than Romney.” Which brings me to the focus of this post: to show undecided voters, regardless of where they find themselves in the political spectrum, that even if you aren’t all that impressed with the President, voting for his second term is better than the alternative.
Sure everyone has their own idealized, superhero-esque idea of what the President should be, but the reality is, that simply doesn’t exist. Humans are deeply flawed and politicians especially, are no different. During election time, their priority is one in the same – getting that sweet spot in the Oval Office. The purpose of the rigorous campaigning process is for the public to get a sense of what each candidate is like, in terms of the policies they support, and the ones they don’t. For the most part, this includes appealing to the public and trying to portray political beliefs that they have in common with the electorate. You gain an understanding of what changes they intend to impose on the nation as well as each candidate’s highly-idealized vision for the future of the country.
Interestingly enough, one of the significant influences on voter support (particularly of the uninformed variety) has nothing to do with policies, tax plans, beliefs, or even party affiliation; and that is character. In most cases, the electorate can get a pretty good sense of that during the campaigning process too. Party conventions, speeches, rallies, and debates (oh the debates!) are all major exhibitions of each candidate’s character. Keeping in mind, these candidates are meticulously primed, buffed, and polished to perfection, yet despite being coached down to the slightest of hand gestures, true character always seems to poke its way through these hand-crafted political personas.
As soon as President Obama began his campaign in ’08, it was evident to everyone, Democrat or otherwise, that he was an eloquent speaker, a master at articulating his points with a calm and collected demeanour; never once breaking composure. He exuded confidence and class, the latter being rather hard to come by in these elections. He was not arrogant, in fact, the tone of humility in his expression of beliefs struck a chord with many Americans, as it is seldom heard in the realm of politics. Even Governor Romney described the President as “a very eloquent, gifted speaker.” Ah, Romney, the man of many faces. Some may call him versatile, others, an inconsistent imbecile. As I was saying earlier, the American people can usually get a good feel for what each candidate represents during the campaigning process. This however, is not the case with Mitt Romney.
I’m not going to showcase the long list of Romney’s inconsistent political views, simply for lack of time (if you are interested in reading up on those, you can do so here), but rather I intend to demonstrate the implications of these “flip-flops”.
Romney’s policy shifts (literally from one extreme to the other) and overall vagueness of his presidential agenda is a clear indication that he really has no idea what he’s going to do should he be elected.
First, he identifies himself as pro-choice, then he’s pro-life.
He didn’t support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, now he does.
He didn’t like the NRA, now he’s a member?!
WHO THE F*CK IS MITT ROMNEY?
His strategy it seems, is a desperate attempt to get the American people on his side, by saying anything that will benefit him politically, even if it’s contradictory to a previous stance. It seems however, that his strategy has backfired; instead of persuading the electorate, all he has succeeded in doing, is confusing them. Consistency is clearly not a priority for this man, and what does that say about his credibility? That he’s got none.
I am genuinely interested in understanding how someone could vote for Governor Romney. How could you put your trust in someone so clearly lacking substance? The fact is, Romney just doesn’t have the global perspective necessary for leading a country that bears such a great influence on the rest of the world. And by the way, the rest of the world agrees.
For once it seems, the world (except for Pakistan, but I guess you could say it’s one of those “exceptions that prove the rule” sort of situations) is in agreement over something: Romney is not the right man for the job. And maybe Obama isn’t either, but he’s certainly better than the alternative.
Still not sure? Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g