Should Mitt Romey become President, which Mitt Romney would we get? Would it be the one who signed a health care bill into law while he was Governor of Massachusetts? You remember the law -- it was used as the model for the Affordable Health Care Act currently called Obamacare. Or would we get the Mitt Romney who vows to get rid of Obamacare his first day in office?
Would the pro-choice Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, arrive in the Oval Office, or would the currently pro-life "Romney for President" be the one?
Perhaps we will get the Romney who said the next President might eliminate the Dream Act that President Obama enacted by Executive Order or perhaps the one who now proudly exclaims he has an ancestor who was born of American parents in Mexico. Or better still, we might get the one who says this country was built by immigrants and even his ancestors were immigrants. Well, duh, except for those few of us who have native American origins, all of us were born of immigrants.
Perhaps we will see the man who favors giving senior citizens vouchers for Medicare and sending them off to fight the wars with insurance companies (but please don't call them vouchers, because that's an unpopular idea). Or maybe we will get the one who now says we'll have to have a governnment sponsored option as one of the Medicare choices.
Just possibly we will get the Romney that doesn't want the government in Affordable Health Care because the government doesn't belong in what should be a private industry. Or possibly we will get the Romney that believes in the afforementioned government option for Medicare.
Maybe we'll get the Romney that says to trust him with the details instead of the one we observe making them up as he does interviews.
Will we get the Romney who said that kids who want to go to college or start businesses should borrow from their parents, or will we get the Romney who now says educating our young people is important and he truly embraces Pell grants?
Do we anticipate the Mitt Romney, who as a representative of Bain, closed companies and cut jobs, not the one who says his Bain experience taught him how to create jobs? Or, will the Mitt Romney who took Bain's profits from the top and walked away, leaving some companies to file for bancruptcy, be the one we can expect?
Will we get the Romney that wrote 47 per cent of the population off in a private meeting, or the one who now embraces all of us as best friends -- the poor, the pregnant, the handicapped, the middle class, the Food Stamp People, the people he cannot comprehend, the multitudes who are too lazy and selfish to live off the always too low minimum wage, and the ones who cannot find two or three jobs in an economy that offers less than one each?
For sure we would be getting the Romney that wants to be president even more than a kid wants a candy bar -- so much he will say anything at all to get the nomination and the job.
But what we don't know from all the verbiage is which Mitt Romney will actually show up for work every day. How could we?
And yet I KNOW what we will get if President Obama comes back for a second term. More lies and cover ups about terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11. He MUST think we're stupid if he expected us to buy that FOUR Americans are dead because of an anti-Muslim video--which, I might add, our Constitution allows under free speech! We'll see many more trillions of dollars wasted on things that haven't a chance of improving our economy, but will further mortgage our children's and grandchildren's futures to China. We'll get a man so narcissistic that he makes the rounds of shows like The View, Letterman, and Ellen promoting HIMSELF instead of spending time RUNNING THE COUNTRY he was elected to serve. A man who feels it is FAR more important to fundraise for his campaign than to meet with the leader of Israel--a country which EVERY previous American president has worked with and supported, but this one seems hell-bent to snub. Sorry, this leopard won't change his spots, and I can't vote for him. I know I won't change your mind, but neither will you change mine. 'Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteThey did a timeline concerning when our President announced that it was probably a terrorist attack. This was on the CBS news tonight. Within twelve hours of the attack he had expressed two times that it was probably terror,including a press conference where he said that terrorism would not be tolerated and that terrorists would be tracked down. Many of the other countries thought that the video was what caused the attack. They thought it was a continuation of the Egyptian uprising over the video. Obama had to go before the UN and explain freedom of speech to them to indicate that in our country we have a right to speak and make videos freely. It was on the news showing him doing so.
DeleteAnd, Jennifer, get real! All sitting presidents have to campaign for reelection. Do you expect him to just sit in the oval office and let Romney walk away with the election? You are not that naive --just Republican.
The Vice President said in the debate that he and the President were on the phone for two hours with Netanyahu before the President went to the meeting. When reading the news magazines, it is apparent not only that Netanyahu is causing some of the stress and tension himself, but also that other citizens of Israel are at odds with their leader because they do not agree that action is needed soon.
Also, Jennifer, some of the very things money was spent on to improve the economy were in the plans under the Bush Administration. Obama just became President before they were signed into law. One Republican congressman actually told a reporter that the only reason he objected to them having become law was because Obama was the one who signed the paper.
No, you won't change my mind either, because this time I am too well informed. I've listened to hours and hours of news programs and read both Time and Newsweek weekly as well as done on-line research and read other publications. I've heard Romney say one thing one time and another a month later. I'm quite sure your leopard will change his spots over and over as soon as he reads the reactions to what he has said and the way the polls react to them. But as I asked in the article, how will we know which set of spots we would get if he became president? He can't be consistent from one speech to the next.
It depends on what channel you watch as to what you hear. I've watched CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS-- all liberal outlets that won't cast Obama in a negative light. You won't get the FULL truth from them. When I watched the Fox News program that showed what Obama & Co. knew and when they knew it, it sickened me. He KNEW there was no spontaneous demonstration that "got out of hand." He knew it in real time. He knew that Ambassador Stevens was BEGGING for more security to prevent this type of attack (even though Biden said in his debate that they didn't). And no...Obama didn't actually call Benghazi a terror attack during his Sept. 12 press conference. He called it an "outrageous and shocking attack" and "brutal acts", but not terrorism. He called the perpetrators of the attack "killers", but not terrorists. The closest he came to mentioning terrorism in relation to the Benghazi attack was a general statement that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." That is NOT the same as saying Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Then, for 14 days more days, his administration tried to deflect attention from the truth by blaming the attack on a stupid video no one has seen. I’ve watched the news, I’ve seen the clips, I’ve read the transcripts. I KNOW I’m right.
ReplyDeleteYes, sitting presidents have to campaign for re-election. But they have a greater responsibility to DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO, which means if they need to meet with dignitaries, handle emergencies, or oversee affairs of state, they need to make that a priority. There will be other times to campaign. I'd respect Obama far more if he didn't show up to fundraising or campaign events because the country needed him TO BE A LEADER at that moment.
While "some of the things" were in the Bush Administration's plans, many were not. Bailing out the auto industry, federal banks, and failed green energy investments were not. Obama made us promises that he'd make things BETTER in four years. He said he'd cut things in half. Instead, he's doubled or tripled them. He said that if he didn't cut them in half in his first four years, he would be a one-term president. He set himself up, and he’s failed to do as promised. He should go, just as he said.
Going back to your charges against Romney, he has NEVER said that the NATION should have a health-care plan like Massachusetts. That healthcare plan was for ONE STATE, and the people voted on it. They voiced what they wanted. Americans never got that opportunity with the Affordable Healthcare Act. It was shoved through when Obama had a majority in the House and Senate, with little or no concern for what the American people wanted.
You cite it as a negative for Romney to change his mind on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Why, then, is it NOT a negative for President Obama to undergo an "evolution" on homosexuals having the right to marry? You don't talk about that, which makes me believe that you find that an acceptable change because the flip-flop moved toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Yet it's still a change, and I can question "which Obama I'll get" if he's re-elected. What other “evolutions” will I see with him? That's just one instance. There are plenty of other changes that President Obama has made from pre- to post-election. But again, you won't hear about those by watching or reading in only liberal-leaning media outlets.
Just as you, I've done my research. I read. I listen to both liberal and conservative news outlets. I watch the debates. I've seen the ads. I've listened to the speeches. In his previous campaign, Obama made the prominent point that "If you don't have a record to RUN ON, you paint your opponent as someone to RUN FROM." That's all Obama has done in this campaign--paint Romney as someone to run from. Why? Because in his four years, he's done nothing to better our nation.