SO, WHAT ARE OUR PRESIDENTIAL CHOICES?
Posted by Tim Bryce on May 22, 2012
– How the race is shaping up for 2012.
(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.
The presidential race is now in full swing, and we didn’t even have to wait for the party conventions which normally denote the start of the official race. Then again, I don’t think anyone is really surprised the race would be between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Obama is the unchallenged incumbent, and Romney has been begging for this opportunity ever since he lost to John McCain in 2008. The differences between the two candidates are startling.
The president will desperately do anything to prevent voters from scrutinizing his true record which includes a broken economy and skyrocketing debt. He may be a master politician, but his management skills score badly, particularly in the area of leadership. Thus far he has offered no proposals for correcting Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the budget deficit, protecting our borders, or providing any direction for the country to follow other than deeper into debt. He stands at the helm of a bloated bureaucratic government that is becoming more invasive in our lives and discourages business. He certainly cannot admonish the country to “Stay the course” as all of the economic indicators point to disaster. What Obama lacks in governing skills, he makes up for as a demagogue obsessed with his ideological view of America. Instead of looking for ways to negotiate a respectable budget or broker changes to the debt ceiling, he wallows in polarized politics at the country’s expense.
This election is certainly not about race or the 1% (even though the left would have you think otherwise); it’s about failed policies and leadership. Ask yourself the question, what are the priorities of the country? What is our direction? Is it space? Energy independence? Becoming fiscally responsible? Instead, he fabricates catch phrases such as “paying fair share of taxes,” an expression aimed at dividing the classes. He also wants to move towards Green energy, and allow spending and entitlements to go unabated. He is quick to accuse the Republicans of playing politics with the nation’s economy, but feigns innocence of any political wrongdoing himself. Is this being hypocritical or just an example of sleight of hand? The country is now more divided than when he was inaugurated.
I find it rather ironic that President Obama who desperately wants to be compared to Ronald Reagan is primarily responsible for transforming Mitt Romney into the next Reagan. Originally considered a moderate, Romney is being pushed to the right by Obama’s election campaign where he is being portrayed as a right-wing zealot. The vicious GOP primaries galvanized Romney and made him a more polished politician who is now more than ready to withstand the slings and arrows the president will undoubtedly throw at him. Now, as the Republican contender, he is beginning to act and sound more like Ronald Reagan. For example, consider his acceptance speech on April 24, 2012:
“We believe in America. We believe in ourselves. Our greatest days are still ahead. We are, after all, Americans!”
And now compare it to Reagan who said:
“America’s best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.”
Both quotations are positive, uplifting and optimistic. Romney is obviously taking a page from the Reagan playbook.
Frankly, Romney was not my first choice in the GOP primaries, but I am now gravitating towards him. I have heard people complain about Romney being a Mormon, and as such, they cannot vote for him based on religious grounds. Such people have to be reminded, this election is about the economy, unemployment, energy independence, and maintaining our mantle as the leader of the free world. It is certainly not about being a Mormon, it is about our survival.
As part of his program on class warfare, the President wants people to resent Romney’s success as a businessman. Under no condition should Romney apologize. After all, as we live in the land of opportunity, Romney experienced the American dream. What would be the alternative; electing a failure? I don’t think so.
After studying all the facts, I cannot imagine an intelligent person voting for Obama. They either have a distorted interpretation of reality or they have drunk his “Kool Aid.”
I’ve been thinking long and hard about Obama’s legacy when he is voted out of office in November. He will not be remembered for rebuilding the economy, Obamacare, or “hope and change” in uniting the country. Instead, I believe he will best be remembered as the element which reignited the conservative movement in this country. It wasn’t Romney who lit the fire, it was the president who ignited our passions and taught the country to ever be diligent and never take elections for granted again. For this, we should be grateful to him for teaching us this valuable lesson regardless how painful it was for us to learn. Whereas he liked to portray former President George W. Bush as the poster child for failure, Obama’s legacy will be as the worst president in our history.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
timbryce.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Copyright © 2012 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
NEXT UP: THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES-THE 2012 EDITION – with apologies to Hans Christian Andersen
THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! 
jennsonthego said
Unfortunately, I just don’t think Romney will win. I’d like to see him win–and prove me wrong. That said–I don’t think he’ll appeal enough to the masses to pull off a win. If people were truly looking at the issues it might be different–however too many people eat up the news and don’t think critically about the issues–they are swayed by the stuff the hear on television without investigating the legitimacy of what they see and hear/ Romney doesn’t carry the charisma people are looking for…something Reagan had naturally and came forth in his charm and his wit. I think we are in for another very long 4 years.
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
A K.C. of Dunedin, Florida wrote…
Excellent essay!
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
A J.P. of Toronto, Ontario wrote…
In politics, any politics, six months is a long time. Debate about the economy as it actually is, or may shortly become, tends to get bogged down in either glittering generalities or a discussion involving statistics and how to interpret them. Without doubt, the economy will frame and shape most debate.
This poses a problem for mainstream media, either of the right or left, namely that “economics is a bore.” Even for those out of work, dissertations on economic theory, monetary versus fiscal policy, real unemployment as opposed to statistical unmeployment, the relative importance of GNP as opposed to balance-of-trade – and so on are not geared to produce enthusiastic audiences, either on the stump or on TV. To Reagan’s classic economic question, ” Are you better off now than you were four years ago? ” there are many different answers depending on how terms are defined, where you live and, of course, your personal situation. In some ways, it is not an easy question to answer, counter-intuitive as such a statement appears.
Where issues involving private lives, sexual matters, conflict, name-calling and so on arise, the media will be all over it like ants at a picnic – this, they know, attracts and holds viewers. I would expect any form of this will be eagerly worked over no matter which candidate is involved.
Although the comment by the famous House speaker, Tip O’Neil, that all politics are local, still rings true, it may yet be that national issues will be more prominent in this campaign than some others.
To what extent the President, any President of either party, can bring into effect a coherent program, especially an economic program, based on any coherent theory or philosophical position given one party of fanatics controls the Senate and the other party of fanatics controls the House, and given that most people these days accept that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on ideology, is in itself a moot point. I recall one speech by Romney earlier in the primaries, in which he said, ” When I am President I will repeal ObamaCare.” Hello? Newsflash – the President does not make the law. Good luck in repealing ObamaCare if the Senate, for example, is Democratic.
To what extent any government, short of a true and absolute dictatorship,can actually “move” the American economy significantly in any direction is also a debate worth having. For a nation with a general proclivity for fast results and decisive change in little time, the economy represents a political challenge in that by its very nature it more evolves than turns on a dime – even with coherent programs, full political support from all three branches of the Federal Government, it will still take months and, in some cases, years for any ideologically driven change to filter down to “my town, my street and my job.”
I do agree that, except for fringe elements, the statement that this contest is not about race is probably a correct general assessment. It may, however, be about this or that demographic largely supporting one candidate of the other, and some of these demographics are large – Latino/Hispanic Americans, the wealthy and the upper middle classes, ” the Black community,” if there is such a thing, young people and voting-age students, women as politically distinct from men and urbanites as against rural people will all be important sub-communities to gain or lose.
Although Romney can probably count on reluctant support from Christian Evangelicals and may lose ground with the Jewish vote, yet I do not think religion will play as important a role as some people may think. Again, it’s the economy.
I believe this election will be close, possibly as close as the Bush-Gore contest, and therefore it is of vital importance that the voting process itself be impeccably clean – accurate counts, working machines, and so on.
Canadians care considerably about what happens for obvious reasons, and therefore tend to follow the process as “interested observers.” With some exceptions, Canadians have historically felt better about and tend to get along better with Democratic Administrations, going all the way back to FDR, at least. Although it may or may not be shifting a bit at present, this is because our political center of gravity has always been significantly to the left of the American consensus.
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
A K.S. of Oklahoma wrote…
I have long felt that our country needs a good businessman to run the country like the “business” that it is. Politicians just do not have the business skills.
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
A B.H. of Boulder, Colorado wrote…
You had a fractious republican preliminary process to get to the point where Romney was the apparent nominee even though it was fairly obvious what the outcome would eventually be anyway – and it actually WAS more about religion than anything else (Santorum). You had the republicans turning on each other, shooting at each other INSTEAD of the president and the failed policies of the democratic party members in congress. I’m not sure there is a “conservative” political movement any more – it may well be a conservative RELIGIOUS movement, but it’s nowhere near as large or significant as it has to be to turn things around. That’s because the extreme ends of either side of the coin fail to understand that they are not majorities, they are minorities and the MIDDLE of the road is where the majority lies. People tend to apply a SINGLE litmus test to any political question…and sometimes, it’s not even a politically relevant litmus test. For example, they will ask what someone’s policy on birth control, the state of Israel, war on terror, right to life, or any number of socially important questions TO THEM, but in the end, they won’t ask the simple question that Ronald Reagan asked when running against Jimmy Carter:
ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO?
The answer, obvious to the casual observer, is a resounding NO. However, too many folks see him as the first BLACK president (and will vote on that basis), as the president who got Osama (timing is everything), or the president who advocated health care for everyone (despite the fact that it still doesn’t exist). They will allow things like being a Mormon, being a successful BUSINESSMAN or any other non-relevant factor to enter into their decision in the voting booths.
LikeLike
Jean Bryce said
Obama is a “stain” on the history of our country….much like a spaghetti sauce spot on a clean white shirt. His portrait should not hang in the hall with people like Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, et al. This has been a miserable four years….pray to God we don’t do this again!!
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
An H.S. of Las Vegas wrote:
You wrote – “…I cannot imagine an intelligent person voting for Obama.”
I hope there’s enough left (insert school system rant). And I sure hope they vote (insert responsible citizen rant). We never really have a real choice for candidates (insert political process rant).
Great post as always, Tim!
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
A K.E. of Sacramento, California wrote…
I just don’t understand how otherwise “intelligent” people can be so blind! It is like some sort of addiction to vote for Obama again! I feel the way you do, Tim. Great write!
LikeLike
Louise Massa said
A failure to check out Obama’s record in the last election gave us the calamity we have occupying the WH. It’s the old adage, “fool me once same on you, fool me twice same on me.” If the American people “choose” to go around with blinders on, and rather than investigate, his failed record, prefer to be led around by the mainstream media, so be it, than the people will get the public officials they deserve.
Barack Hussein Obama when elected president of these United States was a radical left-wing ideologue, dedicated to anti-Americanism as well as socialism. Three years and five months later he hasn’t changed one iota.
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
An A.E. of Clearwater, Florida wrote…
You did it again.!!!! Seems like you keep getting better as you write.
LikeLike
Tim Bryce said
Already taken care of. Thanks.
LikeLike