I’ve tried to be clear in my support for President Obama for reelection. Here and here are two independent and supportive views about President Obama.
October 15, 2012, my post about Mitt Romney included the following: “In the early months of this 2012 campaign season, I was really very neutral about Willard “Mitt” Romney…he seemed like a decent sort of moderate guy…To me, he seemed pretty reasonable compared with the others…As time has gone on, it has become impossible to divine where Mitt Romney stands on anything.”
He has been essentially totally opaque on what he really plans to do as President (he “has a plan”, he says); and has stone-walled reasonable requests for financial disclosure that all other candidates have granted. He has many things to hide, and he is brazenly announcing that he is hiding them. We’ll learn too late what they are.
Romney has been immensely successful in making money for himself, so plausibly his entire governing mindset will be that of an ultra wealthy businessman.
There is plenty of information around that should make the 98% (income under $250,000 a year) very concerned about Mitt Romney as President.
One of the best, very recent, came from President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on November 3. It is short, and you can read it here.
There are many in the 98% (under $250,000 a year) who think they are the exception to the rule, and they merit the wealth they will surely attain in a Romney-America.
It just won’t happen.
Romney-land is for the very few elect.
There is another reason to be deeply concerned about a Romney Presidency.
As President Obama’s experience has demonstrated, while the President has some independent power, the real driving force in American policy is that single Congressperson you’ll elect tomorrow, and the two Senators you also elect from your state. They can work together with the President and with each other and keep the ship of state sailing relatively smoothly.
Or they can obstruct everything – working for the Presidents failure as they did the last four years.
Perhaps, tomorrow, Romney will be elected, and, let’s say, that the Republicans hold their majority in the House, and become a majority in the Senate.
Add Republican Governors and state legislatures controlled by Republicans, and the problem compounds.
Ah, Republican control will make for good times again, you say?
Not so fast.
Two sides can play by the same rules. There is no reason for the defeated Democrats to cooperate with the victorious Republicans. I am quite certain that this is a main reason why the Democrats, when they could have done so, did not change the cloture (filibuster) rule of 60 votes to end debate in the U.S. Senate. They were wisely thinking ahead to the possibility that they might be in the minority in 2013.
Even if Romney turns out to be moderate (I’ve seen no evidence that he will be other than a wealthy businessman who additionally learned the rules/roles as a bishop in a male-dominated authoritarian church), and even if he has comfortable majorities in House and Senate, Romney will be on a very, very short leash.
The win will have been achieved by Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and the others for whom Power has always been the only objective.
Of course, the win will only be temporary – nothing like this is ever permanent – and we’ll be miserable as it proceeds, but we’ll be stuck with what we chose, Tuesday, November 6.
Be wary. Choose wisely.
(For other related posts, enter/click Election 2012 in search box, and the list/topics will come up. There will be a followup post on ourselves and political reform election day.)
END NOTE: If you’re partisan, you can challenge my claim to be “moderate, pragmatic Democrat”. Fair enough. If you are interested in my personal mindset, pretty long term, here’s the letter I wrote October 24, 2000, to family and colleagues and friends about the soon-to-happen 2000 election. It speaks for itself. Election 2000001