Obama vs Romney

What will it be, a president far more able to speak in generalities, a man elected on the strength of two words, "hope," and "change," but delivering neither?  Or, shall we vote for a candidate, whose party speaks of bringing down the size of government -- making it less intrusive -- and yet carries the banner for those demanding that we impose the religious litmus of "right to life."

I'm voting for Romney, despite my abhorence over people telling women whether or not they should abort.  I don't believe that life begins at conception.  But, I wouldn't mind such people so much, if only they would confine they ideology to those who think as they do.  Don't impose it on others.

I will nevertheless vote for Romney because I'm truly afraid that America's mushrooming debt will enfeeble this country.  I realize that in a world of globalization it is inevitable that America and China may well have to enter into a symbiotic relationship.  But, I believe we must retain, at the very least, parity.  To allow China to develope greater financial strength than America will only lead to a woeful day of reckoning.  We must address this problem now.

And, that's what gives the Democrats their great advantage.  They are masters at kicking the can down the road.  Reform?  Sure, tomorrow.  Obama's own commission comprised of Simpson and Bowles came up with a plan that might be a workable blueprint for getting us back on the right fiscal path.  But, did it find any real support from Obama? No.  Paul Ryan comes up with a plan which gets passed in the House.  Do Democrats say we've got a better plan?  No, they go after Ryan's plan with knives unsheathed, but never offer a plan of their own.

I mentioned this once to a Democrat, whose response was, "look, while we may have a majority in the Senate, it's not filabuster proof."  Maybe that's true.  But, it's long been a custom to offer something up that your party feels is positive.  If the other party filabusters it, you can always tell the voters what you tried to do in their behalf.  You can then put the other party on the spot by pointing out what you had hoped to do legislatively for the country and how you were frustrated by the opposing party.

So why hasn't Obama encouraged Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to do that?  Very simple.  Any plan to begin reducing the nation's debt will produce some pain, or, at the very least, belt tightening.  People don't like that.  See what's been going on in Greece.

That's why I'm voting for Romney.  The Republicans have guts.  The Democrats don't.  And, with out a certain amount of backbone, you're not going to improve our economy, you're not going to produce significant job growth, you're going to fritter away America's strength in the international arena.  In short, China will begin eating our lunch.

This spinelessness on the part of the Democrats carries over to other issues such as illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico.  We clearly need an amnesty program.  But, and it's a big "but," it can only succeed if we hermitically seal our border.  Obama won't do that.  He jokes about ditches with alligators.  Ah, he does have a way with words.  But, actions are a different matter.