So, is there anything going on this weekend?
Information that the spin-meisters wanted to bury was released late on Friday or over a weekend, because no one would pay attention. One of the benefits of 'the new media' is that if something is important enough, such as a state senate bill passed at midnight or a jury verdict pronounced late on a Saturday, it will make an impact.
Such was the case this weekend with the Texas Senate's passage of House Bill 2 and the George Zimmerman murder case verdict. I'm blessed and excited to live in a day where I can have online debates with people across the county at 2:00 A.M. about such issues. It tells me people are paying attention and are engaged, even at the wee hours of the weekend.
What saddens me is the reaction of so many to these long-awaited results, shaped either by their politics, emotions, race, gender, or various combinations of these factors. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, and is of course part of what makes America the amazing place that it is.
However, it appears that the God-given and Constitutionally-secured right to believe differently is diminishing in America. This weekend, in these two events, the more conservative position actually (and perhaps, surprisingly) won the day, and the liberally-minded, politically-correct class, supported and defended by most in the "mainstream media," are in full panic mode. In looking at public opinion polls, this is still a center-right country, with most embracing moderately-conservative positions, both economic and social. However, this position has been under attack from a vocal, sometimes militant and hate-filled extreme liberal class, and is somehow winning the war of ideas in the public square, many times through shame or demagoguery.
Late this past Friday night into Saturday morning, the Texas legislature finally passed the bill outlawing most abortions in Texas after 20 weeks and requiring clinics performing such "services" to meet the same safety and facility requirements as ambulatory surgical centers. This, only after a legal filibuster three weeks ago by Senator Wendy Davis, an illegal one by pro-abortion activists which prevented a vote from being recorded before the regular legislative session expired, and a reset of the bill in a special session called by Governor Rick Perry. While the pro-abortion crowd argues that this is the most stringent of all the states, Texas will become the eighth state to outlaw elective abortion after 20 weeks and the 30th to require the procedure in an ambulatory surgical center. Bill backers argue the facility requirement will provide a much higher level of care and protection for patients, should something go wrong during the "procedure." Far from being a precedent-breaker, Texas seems to be following in a growing line of states that have already put such laws into practice.
But don't tell this to the pro-abortion activists. For them, the Taliban has taken over in Texas, and "women's rights" have been set back to the stone age. The only results of this "regressive and oppressive" legislation is that poor girls and women will be forced to return to the back alleys, to coat hangers, or to driving hundreds of miles to a clinic since the one near them has been shut down. This is nothing more than white men invading women's vaginas, taking away rights to their own bodies, discriminating against and targeting the poor, and making laws that are politically expedient rather than ones which are those backed by their constituencies (all comments I saw and were directed towards me on Twitter early Saturday morning).
Last night, the jury in the George Zimmerman trial returned a verdict of 'not guilty' on the second-degree murder charge in the death of Trayvon Martin. Legally, the prosecution's burden of proving malicious intent on the part of Mr. Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger and killed Martin was not met, leaving the jury no choice but to exonerate Zimmerman. The legal analysts leading up to and following the verdict, even well-known liberal ones, agree on this point.
But don't tell that to the bleeding-heart or many in the black community today. For them, #justicefortravon only could mean a murder conviction, regardless of the facts. For them, the only facts they need to know is that a white man (Zimmerman is half-Hispanic, by the way) shot a black kid who was armed only with his hoodie and bag of Skittles. Martin was obviously racially-profiled by a "creepy-ass cracker" (Zimmerman is half-Hispanic, by the way!), was otherwise innocent, and was killed only for being black. Now, post-verdict, in addition to being a victim of a racially-motivated killing, Martin is now a victim of what is obviously a racist justice system reflective of a still racist society, and we're really no better off than we were 50 years ago in America in terms of race-relations. For some extremists, or those with big Twitter muscles, the only answer now is vigilante justice.
On the abortion law issue, premie care has become so good that more and more babies are surviving birth between 20-25 weeks. Studies are increasingly emerging that a 20-week-old preborn can feel pain. There's no question that the "procedure" for aborting a preborn of that size and age is brutal at best. For these and so many other reasons, regardless of your faith or belief in when life begins, I can't understand how a reasonable person would feel that a restriction on abortion after 20 weeks is problematic. The new law still provides for the same access to abortion that has always been available to the 20 week mark, and a year from now will be in even safer centers that provide far greater cleanliness standards and emergency capabilities.
But this violates the third rail of liberalism, access to abortion no matter the reason, place, or point of pregnancy, as anything less would be an intrusion on a woman's sovereign right to control her own body. To me, this has nothing to do with a child, abortion, or privacy. This has to do with sex, and the potential results of sex. Since the 60s, the feminist movement turned its attention from political and property rights to sexual ones. The sacredness of abortion to the political left is about allowing women to have sex without consequences just as much as their male counterparts, namely removing the threat of pregnancy from sex.
To the pro-abortion crowd, it is unfair that women have to bear the imposition of pregnancy where men do not (supposedly). The 'right to privacy' invented in Roe was more about continuing the legacy of civil rights started in the 60s, getting closer the ideal liberal utopian society, than it was about anything else. Today, to impose any restrictions on abortion gets in the way of consequence-free sex, and thus, is oppressive to "women" and jeopardizes "women's health." The Republicans (read "white men") are engaged in an oppressive "war on women." Don't even get me started on the hatred of the "religious" dimension of this battle by many pro-abortion activists.
Also, special thanks to George Stephanopolous for bringing the concept of equating abortion with other forms of contraception into the mainstream dialogue.
Never mind the fact that the majority of women favor late-term abortion restrictions, and that an increasing number of people are identifying themselves as pro-life. Never mind that abortions up to the 20th week are still completely legal in Texas. Never mind that not one clinic has yet closed, and has a full year to come into compliance with the ambulatory center standards.
On the George Zimmerman verdict, racism obviously exists in America, but it seems more directed from blacks towards whites rather than the historical precedent or what conventional wisdom would tell you. Be it regarding this case, or the recent SCOTUS ruling reversing the section of the Voting Rights Act which called for extra scrutiny to states with histories of voter suppression (50 years ago), one might think by reading and hearing some voices in the black community that we're still in 1963 instead of 2013. If you listen to most in the mainstream media or liberal influencers, profiling of any kind is as heinous of a crime as murder itself.
Which brings us to the aftermath of the verdict. At worst, according to the trial evidence, it seems Zimmerman was guilty of profiling and some questionable decisions to continue the pursuit of Martin. But is you listen to those on TV and Twitter last night, profiling was a crime that required a guilty verdict - don't worry about the fact that he was charged with murder.
In both cases, there's no question we are discussing with historically oppressed classes of people. Do these issues from this weekend have anything to do with oppression? Absolutely not. Is there any arguing or reasoning with these people? Absolutely not.
How did we get here? How can a woman, uniquely gifted by God to incubate and raise a new life, deny that what is growing inside her is a life at all? How is it that a woman has to go to such extremes as to call a preborn baby a parasitic ball of cells that has no rights to inhabit her body? Where is the responsibility of both consenting parties that if you're going to have sex outside a marriage that pregnancy may result, no matter the level of contraception? How can the view or desired result of justice be one that ignores the rule of law and legal standard of 'innocent until proven guilty' just because a (half-) white guy profiled a black kid?
I contend liberal society so desperately wants to right the wrongs of the past that they are willing to commit equally as great wrongs to accommodate the emotional needs of the oppressed classes, and perhaps, assuage their own guilt. We are willing to overlook the murder of the unborn so that women can somehow feel in more control of their lives than in the past, or somehow feel more equal with men. We are willing to convict a man of a crime simply because he saw potential danger in a stereotype.
Unfortunately, I don't see this getting better any time soon. "White men" like me unfortunately can't drive the change. Pro-life women and mothers, strong enough to stand up to the loudest on the other side, must show how the truly oppressed class in the abortion debate is the unborn. Black leaders must work in their community to change the culture of violence in young men so that the stereotype of a young man in a hoodie is not longer seen as a threat.
The answers are simple, but far from today's cultural desire or norms. If unmarried couples would observe God's design for sex and waited for marriage, the abortion issue wouldn't even be a problem. If the black community, no matter their economic conditions, would rise up to stop the pattern of gangs, violence, and drugs, with fathers actually present in their sons lives, society would no longer feel a sense of fear of young black men.
But no. Our culture today seeks to justify the actions of the oppressed classes simply because they've been oppressed, no matter what atrocities they may carry out. Assuaging these groups' feelings, "empowering" them, and striving for a perception of equality is more important than standing up for what is right, regardless of class or circumstance.
The law and ruling of this weekend are a welcome and somewhat unexpected step towards righting some wrongs, but these classes and the mainstream media will do everything they can to try to convince us that in both of these cases the wrong decision was made, and everything they can do demonize those who support these decisions.
Be prepared.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Responding to defeat as a conservative Christ-follower
I read an article earlier that positionally sums things up - after years of campaigning and arguing with over $1 billion spent, basically nothing has changed. President Obama stays in office, while Dems retain the Senate and GOP the House. All that for basically nothing.
The partisan in me -- the one who grew up going to GOP election night parties with my family, who listened to Rush since 9th grade, the guy who still is strongly conservative in terms of policy and governance, who once thought that I might even want to run for political office -- is incredulous. In the face of overwhelming economic turmoil, rekindling of unrest in the Middle East, and an increasing assault on personal liberty by a burgeoning federal government, it's very hard to understand how a plurality of Americans (if not majority by the time all votes are counted) came to believe that more of the same will make America and all of our lives better.
Long forgotten it seems is the admonition of a former Democratic president, "Ask not what your country can do for you...". The policies of Robin Hood (or redistribution in today's lexicon) rather than empowering and celebrating individual success is how economic recovery is defined in 2012 USA. At least on November 6, more Americans believed that government is responsible for providing its citizens a path to recovery and prosperity instead of free markets and 'rugged individualism.' It seems clear that four years from now, barring sustained political gridlock in Washington, there will be no questioning whether or not the US has joined the ranks of the world's other socialist nations.Tonight was also a repudiation of conservative, if not Christian, values and ideals. As the campaign progressed through the summer into the fall, the already loud cheer from social liberals grew to a roar. Abortion, gay marriage, pacificism, extreme environmentalism, and amnesty for illegals all became front-burner issues. Tolerance is preached, but only if defined as towards all but Orthodox Christianity.
Which brings me to my struggle. As I've 'grown up' -- the last few years especially -- my hardline conservative/Republican beliefs in indvidualism have been softened in the face of Biblical truth. The American form of individualism honed in the 19th and 20th Centuries, while defining to the American experience, cannot be found in Scripture. The peoples of the ancient Near East -- notably the Hebrews and early Christians -- were known by their collectivism and community. The question for 21st Century American Christians is where does Biblical responsibility to the community end and government tyranny begin?
It can be argued that the earliest Church shared everything they had because most had little-to-nothing, and in the face of persecution needed one another to survive. Regardless of this view or a much more charitable/spiritual one, they were anything but individualistic. Both the Old and New Testaments communicate the responsibility of the Chosen People to care for the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, while pursuing unity within and charity to all as the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
But the Bible also seems to encourage the faithful to participate in politics and government, as much as they have been able through human history. Is it not being salt and light to stand up against the murder of millions of unborn babies in the name of convenience or sexual freedom while caring for women; to deny blessing on homosexual unions and protect God's view of sex and marriage while recognizing the humanness of all; to support just immigration laws and punish those who break them while supporting the alien and stranger; to defend and support others in foreign lands against tyranny and terror while living peaceably with all men; and to oppose the unjust confiscation of earned wealth in the name of equality while providing for the underpriveleged?
Is conservatism anti-Biblical? There are plenty of people who love Jesus that couldn't wait to reelect President Obama and might say yes. Who's right? Or is this a black and white argument at all (no racial puns intended)?
My immediate quandry is as a Christ-follower first and a conservative American second, how should I feel about tonight's election results? More importantly, how do I act tomorrow and in the days to come?
It seems clear that my first responsibility is to pray for my leaders. God has a funny way of changing our prayers from selfish to those in accordance with His will, if we so allow Him. Next, I must pursue unity as a member of the body of Christ, which means not attacking or tearing down another Christian even if I disagree with them politically. I must also move forward devoid of hate or spite towards those with whom I fundamentally differ, even the President himself. My pastor recently encouraged us in matters of political and social discourse to pursue unity within and civility without (outside the Church).
I struggle at this moment, not knowing if our collective and individual well-being will be better, about the same, or in deeper turmoil than we can imagine four years from now. I struggle whether to feel sad, angry, apathetic, cynical, desperate, or quietly hopeful. I wonder if my disappointment is because of true concern for the direction of our country or just because my guy lost.
These questions can't be answered tonight. I know intellectually that God is still on his throne and in full control of human events like elections. I also know that he superintends over the rise and fall of leaders to accomplish his purposes. For some reason, my heart is lagging behind my head.Going into tonight, I thought I had more faith in the American people. Perhaps, I should have had less faith in man and more faith in God.
A final question: would I be so reflective and contemplative on spiritual things tonight had my guy won?
Monday, November 5, 2012
To friends in MI, OH, & elsewhere
An open letter to my friends and others in Michigan, Ohio, and around the USA...
I write this less than 48 hours from the end of what many feel is the most important election in our lifetime. Some of you may not care about politics, or think that all politicians are basically the same, or maybe don't feel that your vote matters. I feel sorry for you -- perhaps I'll deal with the sacredness of our vote in another post -- but the difference in choices in this election could not be more clear.
Even though I now live in Texas, I'm a proud product of Michigan. My dad was a 30+ year blue-collar-turned-white-collar employee of GM -- Flint Truck & Bus, Pontiac East, Warren Central Office, back to Flint -- before they presented him with an "early (forced) retirement option" after The Bailout. Growing up, other kids talked of their dads and/or moms working at Fisher Body, AC Spark Plug, and Buick City, while other family and friends worked at Saginaw Steering Gear, Flint Metal Fab, Flint V-8 Engine Plant, "Lake-O", Hamtramck, Delphi, and so many others. Summers were spent with family on the Arbutus Beach shore of Otsego Lake, just south of Gaylord.
As if 'MI-cred' needed more bolstering, my family bled "Maize & Blue" before you had to pay Nike for doing so. My wife grew up in the shadows of the Ford Wixom plant. We went to college in G.R. (GO EAGLES!), while working and playing in Holland, Grand Haven, Portage, Kalamazoo, Jenison, Muskegon, Ada, and Kentwood. And for the Buckeyes out there, my wife's brother and sister-in-law call Columbus home and root for the "Scarlet and Gray." For too short of a time, I even couldn't get enough of Autoworld (may she rest in peace).
So believe me, I know the strong and proud union heritage of the "Rust Belt." Many of the luxuries we enjoyed growing up, such as long paid vacations over holidays, good health insurance (remember when prescriptions and doctor visits were 'free'?), and steady work were due in large part to the UAW and the overall success of GM and other members of the "Big 3."
As I grew up though, I started to learn about politics and how dirty they could be, including on the local union level. My dad told me of keyed car doors (and worse) of those who would oppose union voter intimidation tactics, the millions of dollars of union dues that flowed directly to Democratic candidates, and the machine that all but blackmailed GM leaders into giving them more and more. While the rest of the working world was learning to be more efficient, UAW (and other union) contracts were getting more and more unrealistically bloated.
My mom was not exempt. Besides wanting to spend more time at home with my brother and I, one of the biggest reasons she (a Registered Nurse) stepped back from regular full/part-time employment to 'casual' status at work was to avoid having to pay union dues to the Teamsters, who were arguably worse than the UAW (anybody hear of Jimmy Hoffa?).
What's my point? Unions are supposed to represent and protect their members from workplace injustice. I would argue they actually did this for most of the 20th Century, but firmly believe they (all unions) are part of a larger machine that have done the exact opposite over the past 25 years. Instead of making life better for their workers, they've actually hurt business, reduced job-specific and larger economic growth, and helped to foster class warfare (remember the 99% vs. the 1%?). If unions are really so great, why is it that union membership as a whole is at an all-time low?
Specifically regarding the UAW, it's clear that for years GM was mismanaged at many levels. But what if GM leadership would have actually stood up to the UAW and rejected contract demands instead of the continual caving to ballooning benefit packages that arguably led to its bankruptcy? Is there any wonder why the jobs that used to be in the I-75 corridor have been 'outsourced' to China, Mexico, and Korea over the past 25 years? Can you explain why the non-unionized Honda, Toyota, BMW, and other foreign-maker plants here in the US have done so well and continue to outpace the "Big 3" in sales and quality (and drive the UAW nuts)?
President Obama boasts that he "saved the auto industry," one of the key reasons the Rust Belt should vote for him. News flash: he didn't. He (actually we, the US taxpayers) bought up the majority of what was left of GM's stock, managed its bankruptcy (YES, GM still went bankrupt under Obama!), and appointed new executive leadership, all the while arranging for Chrysler to be sold to Fiat.
In reality, President Obama didn't save jobs or save the auto industry. He saved the UAW. Nothing makes this more clear than the story of retired non-union Delphi employees that saw their pensions wiped out when those of their fellow UAW colleagues were saved. When industry and financial analysts are concerned about GM going back into bankruptcy while $16 million of the $49 million to GM alone has been lost to taxpayers forever, it seems clear who has earned salvation by this president and who has not.
If you're still not sure, allow the numbers tell the story:
Some people voted for President Obama because he was black. Some because he wasn't George W. Bush (or John McCain for that matter). Some because he promised to be post-racial and post-partisan (how's that turned out?). Some because he was charismatic, inspiring, and because we really wanted the kind of hope and change he was promising. Maybe some people would select "all of the above."
I don't hate President Obama. I really don't. I do, however, disagree with almost every policy decision he's made in office (short of taking out Osama bin Laden, which I believe any man worth his salt would have done given the circumstances). I firmly believe that instead of making things better, despite his words and good intentions, he's made things much, much worse.
Most of the people I know 'back home' in Michigan are blue-collar, hard-working, middle-class, faith-based, common-sense, reserved, not overly political, Reagan-Democrat types -- really good people that just want to do the best they can for their families.
To those of you and the children of those that the above describes: by pulling the lever for Obama/Biden on Tuesday, are you really choosing the best man for the job? What is the right decision for you and your family: to choose an personally-inspiring figure that we want to believe in but who lacks the real-world experience to turn his lofty rhetoric into positive results, or a man with proven ability to create jobs, care for the needy, and lead organizations most of us couldn't possibly understand?
I agree with President Obama that the economic policies of GWB (and Republican-led Congress) helped to create the recession in the first place -- between 2 wars and out-of-control government spending (plus bad government policies regarding banks and mortgages implemented during the Clinton years), it's no wonder we landed in a bad recession. But it's not 2005 and I don't think Mitt Romney is President Bush, Part II.
At the first debate in early October, most of the country saw that Mitt Romney wasn't the devil that the Obama campaign and the mainstream media had told us he was. Sure, the president was off his game that night, but that night wasn't so much about Obama not showing up as it was about seeing who Gov. Romney really was and what he would bring to the presidency.
Many of us, perhaps for the first time, saw Romney as a practical and determined leader with tons of both private and public sector success. We knew he was rich (and deservedly so, given his business success), but came to learn of his sincere compassion by way of service to needy people through his church and his enormous personal generosity. His rise in the national and state polls and his personal favorability since then proves this was the case.
Regardless of how you voted in 2008 (or any other election for that matter) I implore you -- my friends 'back home' in Michigan, Ohio, and elsewhere -- which of these men do you truly believe will lead the way to setting right what has gone so wrong in this country over the past 4-6 years? Do you believe the liberal academic is the right choice to lead us back to economic growth and prosperity, or is the successful businessman with a track-record of bipartisanship and like-minded values more equipped to turn the Midwest and the entire US economy back around?
I know whom I will be choosing on Tuesday. I humbly ask that, for the good of your families and the country, you also will vote for Mitt Romney.
Even though I now live in Texas, I'm a proud product of Michigan. My dad was a 30+ year blue-collar-turned-white-collar employee of GM -- Flint Truck & Bus, Pontiac East, Warren Central Office, back to Flint -- before they presented him with an "early (forced) retirement option" after The Bailout. Growing up, other kids talked of their dads and/or moms working at Fisher Body, AC Spark Plug, and Buick City, while other family and friends worked at Saginaw Steering Gear, Flint Metal Fab, Flint V-8 Engine Plant, "Lake-O", Hamtramck, Delphi, and so many others. Summers were spent with family on the Arbutus Beach shore of Otsego Lake, just south of Gaylord.
As if 'MI-cred' needed more bolstering, my family bled "Maize & Blue" before you had to pay Nike for doing so. My wife grew up in the shadows of the Ford Wixom plant. We went to college in G.R. (GO EAGLES!), while working and playing in Holland, Grand Haven, Portage, Kalamazoo, Jenison, Muskegon, Ada, and Kentwood. And for the Buckeyes out there, my wife's brother and sister-in-law call Columbus home and root for the "Scarlet and Gray." For too short of a time, I even couldn't get enough of Autoworld (may she rest in peace).
So believe me, I know the strong and proud union heritage of the "Rust Belt." Many of the luxuries we enjoyed growing up, such as long paid vacations over holidays, good health insurance (remember when prescriptions and doctor visits were 'free'?), and steady work were due in large part to the UAW and the overall success of GM and other members of the "Big 3."
As I grew up though, I started to learn about politics and how dirty they could be, including on the local union level. My dad told me of keyed car doors (and worse) of those who would oppose union voter intimidation tactics, the millions of dollars of union dues that flowed directly to Democratic candidates, and the machine that all but blackmailed GM leaders into giving them more and more. While the rest of the working world was learning to be more efficient, UAW (and other union) contracts were getting more and more unrealistically bloated.
My mom was not exempt. Besides wanting to spend more time at home with my brother and I, one of the biggest reasons she (a Registered Nurse) stepped back from regular full/part-time employment to 'casual' status at work was to avoid having to pay union dues to the Teamsters, who were arguably worse than the UAW (anybody hear of Jimmy Hoffa?).
What's my point? Unions are supposed to represent and protect their members from workplace injustice. I would argue they actually did this for most of the 20th Century, but firmly believe they (all unions) are part of a larger machine that have done the exact opposite over the past 25 years. Instead of making life better for their workers, they've actually hurt business, reduced job-specific and larger economic growth, and helped to foster class warfare (remember the 99% vs. the 1%?). If unions are really so great, why is it that union membership as a whole is at an all-time low?
Specifically regarding the UAW, it's clear that for years GM was mismanaged at many levels. But what if GM leadership would have actually stood up to the UAW and rejected contract demands instead of the continual caving to ballooning benefit packages that arguably led to its bankruptcy? Is there any wonder why the jobs that used to be in the I-75 corridor have been 'outsourced' to China, Mexico, and Korea over the past 25 years? Can you explain why the non-unionized Honda, Toyota, BMW, and other foreign-maker plants here in the US have done so well and continue to outpace the "Big 3" in sales and quality (and drive the UAW nuts)?
President Obama boasts that he "saved the auto industry," one of the key reasons the Rust Belt should vote for him. News flash: he didn't. He (actually we, the US taxpayers) bought up the majority of what was left of GM's stock, managed its bankruptcy (YES, GM still went bankrupt under Obama!), and appointed new executive leadership, all the while arranging for Chrysler to be sold to Fiat.
In reality, President Obama didn't save jobs or save the auto industry. He saved the UAW. Nothing makes this more clear than the story of retired non-union Delphi employees that saw their pensions wiped out when those of their fellow UAW colleagues were saved. When industry and financial analysts are concerned about GM going back into bankruptcy while $16 million of the $49 million to GM alone has been lost to taxpayers forever, it seems clear who has earned salvation by this president and who has not.
If you're still not sure, allow the numbers tell the story:
- 7.9% national unemployment (9.3% in MI, 7% in OH), not including the under-employed and those dropped from the rolls.
- 8.2% drop in national median household income since 2009, a drop of $3,040 per household.
- Employment in the auto industry is still 12% below what it was before the recession.
- Some 100,000 jobs (mostly blue-collar) from 2,000 GM and Chrysler dealerships were lost by liquidation.
Some people voted for President Obama because he was black. Some because he wasn't George W. Bush (or John McCain for that matter). Some because he promised to be post-racial and post-partisan (how's that turned out?). Some because he was charismatic, inspiring, and because we really wanted the kind of hope and change he was promising. Maybe some people would select "all of the above."
I don't hate President Obama. I really don't. I do, however, disagree with almost every policy decision he's made in office (short of taking out Osama bin Laden, which I believe any man worth his salt would have done given the circumstances). I firmly believe that instead of making things better, despite his words and good intentions, he's made things much, much worse.
Most of the people I know 'back home' in Michigan are blue-collar, hard-working, middle-class, faith-based, common-sense, reserved, not overly political, Reagan-Democrat types -- really good people that just want to do the best they can for their families.
To those of you and the children of those that the above describes: by pulling the lever for Obama/Biden on Tuesday, are you really choosing the best man for the job? What is the right decision for you and your family: to choose an personally-inspiring figure that we want to believe in but who lacks the real-world experience to turn his lofty rhetoric into positive results, or a man with proven ability to create jobs, care for the needy, and lead organizations most of us couldn't possibly understand?
I agree with President Obama that the economic policies of GWB (and Republican-led Congress) helped to create the recession in the first place -- between 2 wars and out-of-control government spending (plus bad government policies regarding banks and mortgages implemented during the Clinton years), it's no wonder we landed in a bad recession. But it's not 2005 and I don't think Mitt Romney is President Bush, Part II.
At the first debate in early October, most of the country saw that Mitt Romney wasn't the devil that the Obama campaign and the mainstream media had told us he was. Sure, the president was off his game that night, but that night wasn't so much about Obama not showing up as it was about seeing who Gov. Romney really was and what he would bring to the presidency.
Many of us, perhaps for the first time, saw Romney as a practical and determined leader with tons of both private and public sector success. We knew he was rich (and deservedly so, given his business success), but came to learn of his sincere compassion by way of service to needy people through his church and his enormous personal generosity. His rise in the national and state polls and his personal favorability since then proves this was the case.
Regardless of how you voted in 2008 (or any other election for that matter) I implore you -- my friends 'back home' in Michigan, Ohio, and elsewhere -- which of these men do you truly believe will lead the way to setting right what has gone so wrong in this country over the past 4-6 years? Do you believe the liberal academic is the right choice to lead us back to economic growth and prosperity, or is the successful businessman with a track-record of bipartisanship and like-minded values more equipped to turn the Midwest and the entire US economy back around?
I know whom I will be choosing on Tuesday. I humbly ask that, for the good of your families and the country, you also will vote for Mitt Romney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)