Obama vs. Romney

Mitt Romney secured the Republican Nomination for Presidential Candidate. Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party candidate, barring some cataclysmic change in the party. Ron Paul is still hanging on; flat out refusing to bow out of the race. I support most of Dr. Paul’s positions, though I fear him a bit too weak on foreign policy. But enough of that…

Now that we know who the candidates are (note that I’m being realistic, there is no way a third-party candidate wins in this country) let’s proceed to who should be our next President and why.

Barack Obama is currently serving as President. He was elected in 2008 and assumed office in January of 2009. Reading previous entries in this blog, you could easily see that I do not support President Obama. I find his policies disturbing. I believe him to be a Marxist, and by his own admission he gravitated toward Marxist professors in college.

The national debt was nearing $5.8 Trillion when George W. Bush took office in January 2001.
The national debt was $10.6 Trillion the day Obama took office in January 2009.
Today, with over seven months to go in Obama’s first term, the national debt is $15.7 Trillion.

Let’s do some math. That means that George Bush added $4.8 Trillion to the debt in eight years. Barack Obama has added $5.1 Trillion in less than four years.

What should’ve been the keystone legislation of the Obama White House, the Health Care overhaul, has been nothing short of disastrous for Obama. The legislation now sits before the Supreme Court, who will decide the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate. If the Mandate is deemed Unconstitutional, the entire legislation may be thrown out. This is the same law that John Conyers (D-MI) told us was Constitutional under the Good and Welfare Clause (which doesn’t exist). This is the same law that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told us had to be passed so we could find out what was in it, which was a direct contradiction of Obama’s own campaign promise of putting every bill online for five days prior to signing. That promise, by the way, remains mostly broken.

With the mandate going before the court, Obama stepped up the rhetoric, stating that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Court to strike down a law. Apparently, the Constitutional Law professor forgot that the Supreme Court has been striking down laws since the early 1800s. He also warned of such power being wielded by unelected officials. Yet his own presidency, which was originally touted by the media as the paragon of transparency, is rife with czars and unelected officials put in place by executive fiat, with no Congressional oversight.

Prior to becoming president, Obama was a Senator for Illinois, and prior to that he was a state Senator. Along the way, it has been common practice for Obama (and not saying that no one else subscribes to this method) to dig up either legal problems from his opponents past or “character” issues to hurt them. His rise to state Senate saw his Primary opponent hit with “leaked” divorce records. In the general election, when facing Jack Ryan, Obama was in for a fight. That is, until records of Ryan’s divorce and custody battles hit the media. Two up, two down.

Enter present-day Frank Vandersloot, currently serving as a co-chair of national finance for the Romney Campaign. Vandersloot lives in Idaho and is the CEO of Melalucea, Inc. Uh-oh. He doesn’t support Obama…and let’s face it, Romney doesn’t have divorce records and the only “character” issue they’ve struck against him, a supposed bullying incident from 50 years ago, hasn’t stuck. So the Obama Campaign launches a series called “Behind the Curtain” that details the unscrupulous nature of Romney donors. Shortly after the “BTC” article, the Idaho County Courthouse near the Vandersloot residence received a request for court information about certain issues of Vandersloot’s past, including divorces and a work-related incident.

This is how Obama fights, so get used to it.

When it comes to other issues concerning Obama, it seems as though we have what is being dubbed a "Composite" President. He has several different versions of his conversion to Christianity, with no in depth knowledge of what he converted from. For over fifteen years, Obama's publisher listed him in publication materials as being born in Kenya. The publisher claimed it to be a "fact-checking" error, but even if that is the case, the material was provided by someone to be fact checked.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, actually has executive experience. He was governor of Massachusetts. By Southern Republican standards, Romney is rather liberal. By national standards, Romney is actually fairly moderate. 

Romney's work for Bain Capital is the subject of anger for Democrats. He co-founded the investment firm in 1984. Businesses the Bain invested in would often endure layoffs soon after Bain entered the picture, but added jobs are difficult to estimate, as Bain was very private in dealing with their investors. Romney's personal wealth is accounted around $250 Million. That would make him one of the richest Presidents in history.

Of course, lately the left has decided that personal wealth makes you evil. The rich, who already shoulder more of the tax burden than anyone else, are accused of not paying their fair share. So obviously Romney is accused of being one of the evil rich. He "faux pas-ed" several months back by saying he liked firing people. While the wording was inappropriate, given the economic situation, I understand the sentiment. The greatest thing about a capitalist system is that people can pick and choose who provides them services and products. Deciding that someone will no longer provide you a good/service is akin to firing them, as they will no longer be paid by you.

I don't agree with all that Romney has done and some of his policies while governor don't sit well with conservatives. But his moderate stance will probably play well with Independents.

So the choice is this:

Obama: A self-proclaimed Marxist admirer who unable to run on merit, has to use his opponent's private lives to defeat them. He claims to not be a big spender, but he has added $5 trillion to the national debt. He's on pace to be the first President in history to suffer no net job growth in his first term. He claimed that his policies would cause energy costs to skyrocket (given that gas prices are nearly triple what they were when he took office, it's easy to see that to be the case) and that he sought to bankrupt the coal industry. In his first book, Obama referred to a six month stint in the private sector as time spent "behind enemy lines."

Romney: A man who has actually created jobs and has executive experience. Romney embraces the private sector as the driving force in job creation, not government. His moderate policies would chart a far better course for this nation than Obama.