When the Republican presidential candidacy race began heating up earlier this year, most of the candidates were practically screaming from the rooftops why they were right for America and why they were the candidate that would beat an incumbent president whose average weekly approval ratings are at 50 percent (Gallup, 12/20/2011). However, one candidate started a very low key campaign and has managed to keep it that way: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Now there are really three key position issues that Mitt Romney's stance is far and away better than that of his rival, Newt Gingrich. The three issues are: China, the economy, and foreign policy.
In regards to China, Mitt Romney has adopted a less antagonistic approach than Mr. Gingrich. For example, Mr. Gingrich has repeatedly stated beliefs that China suppresses dissent and abuses human rights. Although this is accurate, it is not wise to anger a nation that owns a total amount of 1.15 trillion dollars of U.S. debt (Terence P. Jeffrey, CNS NEWS). On the other hand, Mitt Romney has adopted a stance that, although firm, leaves room for movement on both sides. An example of this is his answer to the question whether China was a human rights disaster. Romney responded that he believes in building bridges and not walls. However, it must be stressed that his willingness to build bridges must not be misjudged as a view that is complacent with the status quo. One of the biggest challenges that Mitt Romney faces with China if he is elected in November is righting the trade imbalance that is currently very much in favor of China. It will very interesting to see if Romney will be able to do what his recent predecessors have not: say that they will be tougher on China and then actually follow through ontheir promises once they are in the oval office. If he can do that, America's economy will be stronger for it.
On September 6, 2011, Mitt Romney became the second Republican candidate after Jon Huntsman to offer a fully detailed and fleshed-out economic plan. This obviously sets him ahead of Newt Gingrich, whose own economic views have been muddled at best and unclear at worst. However, Mr. Gingrich has made one claim that is worthy of note: he has claimed that within five years of taking office, he would be able to balance the national budget. The biggest problem with this claim is that since the last surplus budget in 2001, the scale of government has grown ever larger under both a Republican president (George W. Bush) and a Democrat (President Barack Obama). Moving back to Mitt Romney's economic plan, which is entitled, "Day One, Job One," Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan emphasizes critical structural adjustments rather than short-term fixes. He seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. Furthermore, he seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility.
Newt Gingrich has built his reputation on being the Republican Party's leading intellectual. This would seem to imply that he is a man of the highest intellectual fortitude. However, while his foreign policy ideas sound nice in speeches, they simply will not work if he is ever elected to the oval office. Mr. Gingrich has offered statements that seem over the top. For example, Gingrich has said he will sign an executive order on his first day recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Of course, the fatal flaw with this plan is that it would risk enraging most of the world's Muslims. In June, Gingrich tore apart President Barack Obama at a Maryland Republican Party dinner in Baltimore. "We should have taken extraordinary actions against Pakistanis -- within 24 hours. We should have said if you don't release those people you can assume we have no relationship and we'll chat with you from India." Is it really wise to offend a country with such a tenuous hold on power as well as nuclear weapons?
On the other hand, Mr. Romney has rolled out a fully fleshed-out foreign policy agenda. The policy plan outlined by Mitt Romney deals with one main issue which will strengthen the United States' position as a military super power. One pertains to "defeating the Radical Islamic groups." Romney believes that a three-pronged approach would help end the threat of the Jihadist. The first aspect would be the employment of military options and pressure. The second prong would be diplomacy which would involve the regional and international players. The third approach would exhort the Muslims to reject extremism. In those nations where the Al Qaeda is developing its roots, such as Bali and Pakistan, the United States should send its forces in order to work in synergy with the local population to contain the terrorists.
America faces great challenges. Every time in our history we have faced challenges such as these, America and her people have come through stronger than ever before. I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate that can both defeat President Obama and get our amazing country back on track. America is not a nation of followers but rather a nation of leaders who lead by example -- not by mere words.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
This Anthony Martin, the author of this article. I appreciate all of your input and comments. Thank you for taking time to read this article. For those of you who are interested, I recently put up a foreign policy blog. Here is the link: http://theforeignpolicyblog.wordpress.com/
In regards to what newt said about Pakistanis -You said Is it really wise to offend a country with such a tenuous hold on power as well as nuclear weapons? You assume they are stupid, and would risk war with the U.S. Quite the opposite. Thanks to Obama many countries think we are weak and it seems you do as well. Actually what newt said was quite profound, and would make the Pakistanis think, something you seem incapable of doing.
It is good to see young people involved in what is going on in our national politics. It is even better to come a site where 99% of the posters are opposed to your opinions as well as your candidate of choice to voice your opinion, which means you are willing to have a discussion, as well as stand for what you believe. It is one thing to hang out in a crowd of like-minded people who will support everything you say, quite another when you are willing to stand in a group of people who don't.
For me, Romney is not my first choice. He has shown to flip-flop on issues, nor does he make a stand fully on conservative issues. (just keeping it to a short general list). However, I do believe he has some strong points. The first is that American politics has become nothing more than a business, who can make what deals and come out with things that benefit them. Because of this, Romney would be able to handle both the political as well as the "business" aspects of Washington D.C. But this also makes it a concern...will Romney's policies have a price tag as well?
While it is easy to lay the blame of everything that goes wrong on the President, most times the fault actually lies with the Congress. And this is a major portion of what shapes a President's policies.
I'm not demonizing those who bought into this theory, but it's time for them to stop promoting it. We've tried it for 30 years and it led to a terrible economic situation - insufficient job growth, declining wages, declining exports until very recently, increasing debt leverage on both government and families, soaring health care costs, declining retirement security, exponentially increasing reliance on esoteric and volatile financial instruments for GDP growth, and finally a complete collapse of our economic system that we're still trying to fix.
Give it up. It has never worked, it will never work, and it's time for people to understand that the only way to build an economy that works is for us to utilize the God-given creative and productive talents of the American people to make real products and services. That kind of organic growth is slow, but it's real. Supply side economics creates fast growth but it's not real.
"... since the last surplus budget in 2001, the scale of government has grown ever larger under both a Republican president (George W. Bush) and a Democrat (President Barack Obama)."
While true, this is not relevant, as Congress determines budgets and taxes.
That said, you need to read about Mitt Romney's ads, Mitt Romney's speeches, and Mitt Romney's SuperPAC friends. All these have been broadcasting and repeating lies and misinformation, most notably putting words in Obama's head and thoughts in his brain. Many of the "facts" in Romney's ads and speeches are completely untrue - about the sixe of government, or trends in government spending, or Pbama's defense spending, and so on - never mind blaiming the Bush-bWall Street meltdown on Obama. Romney has been less than forthcoming about the ties he maintains to the SuperPAC which is spending millions on his behalf. It's illegal for his campaign to coordinate with the SuoerPAC, but the SuperPAC is run by one his major contributors and long-time supporters, so, you know - duh and "as if."
Romney looks sharp and talks a good game, but... gosh, why won't he release his income tax returns? Because they would show he's paying 15% on almost all his income - from capital gains. In other words, he's paying less than hard-working middle-class Americans on a percentage basis. And he's no doubt holding plenty of money off-shore away from taxation.
I don't have time to find all the links for these, but search on HuffPost, and you'll find links.
Obama may have his faults, but none of them relate to being dishonest or less than transparent about his personal life or finances.
On the other hand, I am glad to see kids thinking about civic responsibility and the future.
The entire premise, unless I've missed something, is that Mitt Romney should be President, because he's better than Newt Gingrich.
Applause! Applause!
A veritable groundswell of positive comments from right-wingers then ensues.
Apparently you are all "mightily impressed" with the insight and Political prescience of this "undergrad at a local Community College".
Oh wait, on second thought, that DOES make sense.