Contributors

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

It's Mitt!

After last nights primaries, it's now very clear that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. This means that a conservative will not win the White House in 2012.

All of this makes me wonder how and why people are going to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. I suppose I would understand if it's purely out of spite or high emotions. Perhaps some have even deluded themselves into thinking that Mitt Romney is actually going to do what he says he is going to do. I had someone tell me the other day (actually, I've had a few people tell me this) that he LOOKS LIKE a president and Barack Obama doesn't. I guess looking the part is of paramount importance.

But these are the only reasons I can think of that would drive people to vote for him. He's not a small government guy at all. More importantly, he's not going to create jobs. His track record shows that he's exactly the type of leader that caused the collapse of 2008. He says he wants less regulation, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle down economics. Those policies have been shown to be failures.

Last night, he said that the president doesn't know anything about private sector job growth and has, in fact, been poor at it.

Really?


























Sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that this campaign is going to be filled with "inside the bubble" statement and thinking just like this. Take a look at how the president's policies affected job creation with this interactive page. 

These are the facts on job growth during the Obama administration. Add in the stock market gains (perhaps RECORD gains) and 3 percent real GDP growth in Q4 of 2011 and Romney's statement is just plain wrong.

So, why would he be a better economic president?

4 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Mittens seems to think he is a conservative - doesn't that count for something?

Mark Ward said...

It's hard to tell. You may be right but it seems more like he's trying out for a part and not doing the greatest of jobs to win it. The presidency isn't a part in a film and that's why I question his expertise, not just in economic matters, but in foreign policy as well.

You can't really use the experience argument against the president, although they are still trying to do that. Obama has been president for 4 years and Mitt hasn't so why does the latter...or anyone...seem to think he's more experienced?

Heywood Jablowme said...

"The presidency isn't a part in a film"

Actually, it makes more sense if you look at it from the perspective that it is, indeed, meaningless fluff. Designed to distract and entertain.

I vote for Obama with Mitt as VP. Or vice-versa.

What's the difference?

sw said...

experience in those areas wasnt a big deal when it came to obama 4 years ago with you. you said so.