MY VOTE: Hello, Mr. President... Goodbye, Mr. Nice Guy

I filled in my absentee ballot the other night and very purposefully, albeit predictably, voted for Mitt Romney.  Sadly, I exercised the very tendency I've so vehemently and publicly despised and "blindly" voted "Republican" all the way down, even though I knew little or nothing about some for whom I voted.  That, however, isn't what bothers me most about the fact that my choice this time was less a matter of party loyalty and genuine admiration of a candidate and more a feeling of NEEDING to do it.

I remember being a kid and dreaming of meeting celebrities, which included the President.  As a kid, of course - at least depending upon the age and environment in which you grow/grew up - you don't really think of Presidents in direct relation to political parties and such.  That said, I think the President should be someone that we WANT to meet because he (or she... eventually) is supposed to embody what America stands for at the moment and the direction in which it is going.  Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I DO NOT hate President Obama.  In fact, based upon what I've seen, he seems like he'd be a great person to meet some time.  As for Romney, I'm, well... indifferent at best. 

It's not that I think Romney's wealth separates him out from the "average American" as a person - an argument that I think is piss-poor considering that few if any seem to have felt that way about the filthy-rich Roosevelts or Kennedys, both Democrat.  He just seems boring to me, with little imagination and little to offer in terms of personality in a first encounter.  That said, maybe someone like that is what we need.  The decidedly right-wing Fox News has, this morning, been criticizing the "mainstream media" for acting like the economy is really recovering when, for example, the percentage of jobs growth in the third quarter of this year is actually lower than it was last.  The "mainstream media" maintains that any and all growth is because of Obama, though, and cites the stimulus, but if people will stop and think for a moment, they might recall that the stimulus package issued by Obama was actually developed in cooperation with the Bush Administration during its final days - in meetings in which both Obama and McCain participated (and for which McCain took heat when he suspended his campaign to do so). If anything, the only thing Obama may have done was to expand that stimulus, and that wound up controversial because people resented so much money going to the very banks and financial institutions that they blamed for the crisis in the first place. 

Obama's policies are why the entire country lost money on Solyndra.  They're why many small businesses are about to drop health insurance on their employees fearing the cost and consequences of the Affordable Care Act.  They're arguably why the deficit is higher than ever, making this administration as bad as or worse than the last.  The divisive and elitist manner in which the Democrats conducted themselves during 2009 and 2010, passing a health care bill that neither side is particularly fond of and generally abusing their "majority" in DC in pretty much the same way they say the Bush Administration and Republicans did for years before.  This is why groups like the Tea Party - which only came into existence because of Obama's election and what Obama was saying in 2008 - has grown stronger rather than weaker, further impeding Obama's plans and effectiveness, but unfortunately, filling the House of Representatives with extreme ideologues (mainly from the small business community) that have little or nothing in the way of legislative experience or political capitol. They now make up the "do-nothing Congress" and are really a threat to BOTH parties and major candidates.

Like I said, I don't dislike Obama.  What's happened that compels me to vote for a would-be President I wouldn't necessarily care to meet is, I think, a consequence of what I've said all along, which is that Obama is a decent President that was elected and put into office at the wrong time, too early in his political career and without certain private sector experiences - such as running a business or serving in the military - that might have really helped him make better decisions. I think he also started out, more or less, as a puppet of the Democratic Party, which seems to be the weaker party in its current incarnation because when push comes to shove, it's more concerned with image than with impact.  Instead of focusing with intensity on what it CAN do - on what NEEDS to be done to confront the necessities of a nation - Democrats and candidates like Obama try to please EVERYONE, lumping the need to fix the economy in with placating those that want government to pay for birth control, or for gay marriage to be legal... none of which are pressing issues right now, but ALL of which are purely political hot-spots and buttons that the Democrats push to get attention and get every little vote they can when they really have little else of substance to offer. Republicans have been guilty of the same thing in past years, putting too much emphasis on potentially repealing or curtailing the Roe Vs. Wade abortion law when most know by now that it will probably never be done and, at this point, shouldn't be done for more logical, common sense reasons. They're still putting too much energy into blocking the legalization of gay marriage, which I think should be done just because it's the Constitutional thing to do - regardless of morality, which a personal matter, not a government one.  That said, candidate Romney came to the scene with a specialty in the economy and, in a time in which we need a candidate with that specialty the most, he has made that the lynch pin of his campaign.  I used to think as others did and still do - that it limited him too much - but it gives voters a very clear and important reason to vote for him. 

Obama can SAY he'll balance the budget and deal with America's debt, but he's never actually DONE it - at least not when it comes to, say... a business or a corporation, which could easily be compared to the government in structure.  Like a corporation, the government serves a certain group of people with a President, a Vice President and, in its case, a very big board of directors in the form of the House and Senate, along with smaller groups that operate within the corporation to deal with certain issues and things like public relations and other smaller details.  The only significant difference between a government and a corporation is the government's ability to print its own money, which is precisely why we need someone with small business and/or corporate experience to make sure that such economic powers are not abused by the government/corporation at the expense of its customers, the American people.  Is Romney's record perfect?  Did everything in which Bain Capital invested succeed? No. Nobody is perfect and investments in any business are risky, but to my knowledge, neither Bain nor Romney were directly responsible for those business failures or for those firings and layoff's.  Ultimately, though, Romney and Bain GAVE to America and its economy.  Obama has only ever really taken, and "taking" from the wealth and hard work of the American people is at the heart of just about everything he proposes, including the ridiculously random 30% tax hike on the rich. Not only is it a bad idea in the short term, at least at that high a percentage, but at some point, the regulation and taxation of the Democrats will, long-term, discourage the creation of private sector wealth while eating up so much that eventually, no tax hike will be sufficient.

In conclusion, I can understand why people would try to vote based upon which candidate might potentially do "what's right" for the most Americans, but sadly, we don't live in a time that affords us that privilege, and realistically, I'm not sure we ever did.  Nothing is ever going to satisfy EVERYONE, and sometimes, you have to be willing to endure a little pain in the short term to really be able to accomplish something in the long-term.  I grant that both parties ask for certain potential compromises from different segments of the American population, but at least the compromises asked for by the Republicans don't also punish those Americans that have contributed the most, have been the most successful and SHOULD be held up as examples and role models instead of being the targets of knee jerk resentment and put-down as scapegoats for the fact that more aren't just like them. It does bother me that I'm not impressed with Romney as someone I can imagine as a really cool, likable guy, but if he elected, he wouldn't be the first such President with those qualities (or lack of qualities), nor would he be the first of his kind to otherwise be exactly what his country needs when it needs him.