Common Sense: Voting Lesser of Two Evils? Obama Appreciates Your Support
By Bob Eschliman
It was one of the highlights of the Republican presidential nominating process. Mitt Romney’s chief opponent, Rick Santorum, went off on “Etcha-Sketch Romney,” billing him “the worst Republican to put up against Obama.”
That Santorum took the financially and politically expedient course and later endorsed Romney doesn’t make what he had to say any less true.
And before you go off on the whole, “a vote for someone other than Romney is a vote for Obama,” or “Romney is far better than Obama, that’s why I’m voting for him,” just save your breath. As Tryon Edwards famously said, “Between two evils, choose neither; between two goods, choose both.”
But, if you’re going to vote the lesser of two evils, I’m sure Obama will appreciate your support.
Yes, you read that right. Obama is the lesser of two evils, if you’re going to look at this presidential election that way. Don’t believe me? I can certainly understand that, so I ask for just a small indulgence of your time to review the facts of Romney’s political career.
We’re going to start off with the low-hanging fruit first.
This one is easy… Romney is the architect of ObamaCare, and while he might like to tell folks it was the “right thing” for Massachusetts while simultaneously wrong for America, his staff members urged Washington to consider Commonwealth Care as a model solution for the U.S. healthcare system. And on the campaign trail, he likes to talk about how it didn’t affect “92 percent of residents of Massachusetts,” the facts seem to tell a different story: look here, here, and here for details.
This will be a primary area of weakness Obama WILL exploit in the General Election race. So, if you think Romney is going to do away with it… you would be very wrong.
Another easy one… while Obama has flirted with jacking up tax rates, particularly on the stereotypical liberal/socialist whipping boys: the rich and corporations, Romney has actually done it. Billing them as “closing loopholes,” he raised taxes by $309 million, mostly on job-creating corporations, in his four years in office. In fact, it would have been even more if the liberal Democrat-led Legislature hadn’t cut his tax hike proposal in half in his final year. This from a guy who bills himself as a pro-business, free-market kind of Republican.
This will likely be another area of weakness Obama will exploit in the General Election race. So, if you expect Romney to be the great tax cutter, if elected, well… you would be very wrong (again).
There is no single issue of greater concern to conservatives and Christians as the issue of life. Without it, there are no other rights, and all other political debate becomes moot. So, you would assume there would be a distinct difference in the two candidates on this issue.
If you were to make that judgment solely on the basis of the candidates’ rhetoric, you would be right. However, I can tell people I look like Mr. Universe until I’m bluer in the face than Papa Smurf, but that doesn’t necessarily make it true.
Actions speak louder than words.
Barack Obama is, arguably, the most pro-abortion President in our history. And, while federal funding for abortion is still outlawed by Congress, he has made it abundantly clear he would like to see that obstacle removed, so that young mothers don’t have to be “punished for their mistakes.”
So, where does Romney stand? Just a tad to the left, believe it or not.
His “ObamaCare only better,” Commonwealth Care, provides for taxpayer subsidized abortion, even in elective cases; copays are only $50. He placed members of the Planned Parenthood Board of Directors on the board the oversees the healthcare program, thereby guaranteeing it would remain a taxpayer subsidized “right.”
Commonwealth Care was instituted in 2006, roughly two years AFTER is supposed “pro-life conversion.” He praised the legislation, and went on to appoint the Planned Parenthood board members to the oversight committee, until it was politically expedient to deny he had anything to do with it.
OK, so that was more than six years ago, right? Ancient history in the world of politics, right?
So, let’s look at what he’s done for us lately, shall we? How about the $50,000-a-plate fundraiser held for his benefit in May at the Florida home of Phil Frost? For those of you who don’t know, that’s the CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals, which happens to be the maker of the Plan-B “morning after pill.”
Recently, President Obama was forced to admit what just about everyone already knew about him from the get-go: he’s all in favor of gay marriage. And, like the life issue, one would assume that putting an “R” behind Romney’s name means he’s on the other side of the political spectrum.
And, again, you would be very wrong. Once again, his record proves he’s to the left of the current President on the issue.
In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a bit of a constitutional crisis by insisting the Legislature go back to the books and create a law that would allow gay marriage, noting that it did not have the power or authority to “make law.” The Legislature refused to take up the issue.
So, Romney took it upon himself to: 1) violate the Constitution of Massachusetts, thereby violating his Oath of Office, and 2) usher in a new “civil rights movement” by ordering gay marriage into effect. He directed new marriage licenses be created to eliminate words like “husband” and “wife,” replacing them with “Party A” and “Party B.” Then he abused his power as the state’s chief magistrate to coerce officials who didn’t comply with the “new law” he created.
Of course, he says the Supreme Court made him do it. But, the Supreme Court had already acknowledged it lacked the authority to do so. And, there was a strong precedent for a Chief Executive to tell a Supreme Court go take a flying leap.
It’s called the Dred Scott case, and Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to enforce it.
But, I’m sure you would point out that the gay marriage situation in Massachusetts is “stale news.” Perhaps Romney has seen the error of his ways, even though he has made no indication to that effect, so let’s look again at more recent “history.” So, let’s look at the folks he hangs out with, shall we?
Perhaps one of the most important people working on behalf of Romney’s campaign is uber-bundler Paul Singer. He’s a Big Money guy, right? Well, that may be true, but did you also know Paul Singer is one of the biggest fundraisers for the gay rights movement?
According to Fortune Magazine: “Since 2001, Singer has quietly given $8.6 million to nonprofits to support gay rights. He spent another $1 million bankrolling the successful effort to pass New York’s same-sex marriage law last year. One of his sons, Andrew, is a Massachusetts doctor who is gay and was married in that state.”
So, I guess supporting the guy who ushered in his son’s “right” to marry another man was kind of a no-brainer.
With all the other ills facing our nation the past four years, it’s probably been all too easy to forget that education reform has been another area of significant attention in the Obama Administration. But, it should be noted “reform” in Socialist-Marxist speak actually means “more government control.”
Given the GOP base’s nearly universal disdain for programs such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, it would be easy to assume the presumptive Republican Party nominee probably shares that disdain. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but you would again be wrong.
Despite his rhetoric of “smaller classes are a non-reform reform,” Romney’s actual record on education is one of expanding bureaucracy a la NCLB. As Governor of Massachusetts, he created a new government department called the Early Education and Care Department. Its mission: provide government-managed preschool and childcare to youngsters.
So, who do you suppose he picked to help lead the new bureaucracy? None other than Linda Mason, co-founder of Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a preschool and childcare company that later was accused of child abuse (oh, and it was bankrolled by Bain Capital portfolio, too). But that’s not the important thing to remember about Bright Horizons.
Remember how Romney likes to talk about the importance of “traditional families” because, as he put it, “every child needs a Mom and Dad”? Well, not so much at Bright Horizons, which is proud of its 100-percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign (just like Bain Capital).
To earn a 100-percent rating from HRC, you must operate your business as a homosexual and transgender indoctrination center. That’s particularly terrifying when the business in question is supposed to be helping craft the minds of young children — so doing with storybooks like “Daddy’s Roommate,” “Heather Has Two Mommies,” and “My Princess Boy.”
Additionally, staff members who believe strongly in the importance of traditional families must be silenced. It’s another vital component of the HRC 100-percent rating.
Somehow, I think “school choice” probably means a lot more than vouchers and charter schools.
For those of you who believe government not only has the capacity, but the responsibility, to create jobs, don’t expect a Romney Administration to fare any better than the current Obama Administration. In fact, it could be worse.
“New jobs added” is truly the only apples-to-apples comparison you can make in the area of “job creation.” It doesn’t factor in “jobs lost” over the same period, but it also doesn’t factor in “jobs saved,” either. So, let’s look at it from that perspective.
During Romney’s four years as Governor of Massachusetts, there were 61,000 new jobs added, or roughly .009 new jobs per capita. In Obama’s first three years in Washington, there have been 4.1 million new jobs added, or roughly .013 new jobs per capita — almost half again as many in only three-fourths the time.
And, let’s face it, the economy is shedding jobs faster than Obama is “creating” them. Can we really afford something worse than that, from a guy who taxes the you-know-what out of real job creators?
Still not convinced? A hardcore Romney fan? Here are a few questions you might try answering: 1) Why is the Romney energy policy almost identical to Obama’s? 2) Why is Romney being supported by the Global Warming alarmist crowd? 3) Why does Romney support McAmnesty? 4) Why can’t we trust Romney to appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal and Supreme Court benches? 5) Why was the Massachusetts Republican Party in such bad shape after his four years in office?
No answer? Or, do you not like the answers you’re finding?
Either way, there you have it. Point by point, issue by issue, Romney is politically left of our current Commander-in-Chief. So, if your argument for voting for him is that he’s the lesser of two evils, well… play that record again, Sam.
If you’re reading this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.
Eschliman is an Iowa journalist with nearly 14 years’ experience covering government and politics.