Both candidates for the November, 2012 presidential election are pleasing to the eyegate. Both are family men. And both would have us follow them. Perhaps a broader look at each man would be helpful.
BIRD'S EYE VIEW
Did anyone get to pick their parents or place of birth? Our choices begin when we decide what to do with what we've been given.
The Republican was born to wealth and privilege. Then he chose to give up his inheritance and use his own worklife to earn his family's provision. His personal behavior choices are spanking clean (no caffeine or drink or drugs or divorce or affairs) and he is faithful to his church. All of his life he has chosen to give away much of his energy/expertise, and he also gives millions of his dollars (over 16%) to his church and charities.
The Democrat was born into hard circumstance which causes us to laud his ability to overcome. He had no worklife to demonstrate his business acumen, but his ability to "speechify" (as Abraham Lincoln would have said) has carried him far. His personal choices included drugs, drinking, smoking, and a life of searching...after being bounced around by the adults in his life. His early associates were genuine radicals and men who have gone to jail. He described his own church life at Rev. Wright's church as not consistent. That also would define his church life since being in the White House. Last week he walked across the street to St. John's Episcopal Church; before that there was a Christmas/Easter visit. His giving was about 1% (2000-2004), 4.7% in 2005, and 6.1% in 2006. When the president won the Nobel prize of $1.4 million in 2009, he gave those proceeds to charity.
MIND CHANGE
The Republican has always been solidly for marriage between a man and woman, but his pro-life views grew stronger as he became more of a proponent for life.
The Democrat won an election with a traditional stance on marriage, but of late has changed his mind. His view and vote on abortion while an Illinois State Senator...was to NOT protect the life of a baby born after a botched abortion. That view could be characterized as tough to defend, and his strong views have continued into the White House. On his first day at work, he broadened the scope of abortions. On August 1st this year, his HHS mandate put our public kitty toward funding abortion procedures, which delivers culpability to everyone's door.
FAITHFUL TO HIS WORD
We presume both men have been faithful to their wives, but how do they do with other promises?
The Republican candidate promised to use Bain Capital to help failing companies, come alongside the scandal-ridden/budget-burdened Olympics, and lead in the state of Massachusetts. He kept those promises. He reduced Massachusetts' debt without increasing taxes, he improved education and balanced the budget, and the state ended up with a surplus. Governor Romney reduced joblessness in Massachusetts. The state was 50th in 50 states for job growth his first year in office...then it rose to 28th by Romney's last year in office.
The Democrat promised MANY things in 2008 that have not happened (see five pages of examples). One promise that would have been nice to keep was his promise to cut the deficit in half during his first term. Excuses are thick and sticky like peanut butter on this candidate. When his party had a majority for his first two years, he could have had any legislation, but did nothing to fix what the voters said were their two main concerns, the economy and joblessness. Our law REQUIRES a budget, but when this president finally produced one, the vote in favor was 0. Curiously, now as our country is being swallowed by debt and spending increases...a recent poll said people still blame President Bush. Huh? The current president spent more than all other presidents combined, yet spending is not his fault.
VISIONARY
A president needs to lead. Which man knows the way forward? Who can be decisive and not just vote "present"?
The Democrat's idea was to spend until the economy was stimulated. Over a year ago he declared the recession to be over, but joblessness tells a different story. His idea for the future is to stimulate again. That seems like electrifying heart paddles for a two-day-old corpse.
The Republican has been tested and proven in his ability to fix problems. Why is this not an obvious choice? What is the criticism against the Republican?
It is said his wife didn't work a day in her life, he put a dog crate up on the car roof, and when he was in high school he pushed a guy down. And he's mean. He doesn't care about people. He's fake. He only likes rich people and wants to make them richer.
Color me flabbergasted that people find those things plausible. Why would this gentleman give tons of money to charity if he doesn't have a heart for others? Why give away his initial inheritance if he's a money grubber? Why would he even bother to run for office if he didn't care about people? Running for office is a major aggravation. As my friend Marilyn would say "hey...I don't need that aggravation!" We are blessed that there are still good men who will put up with rancorous accusations and run for office.
AT DAY'S END
If you want a Sunday golfer, I know your man. If you want a smooth promiser, I know your man. If you want someone who vacations and runs for office during his workday, I know your man.
But if you are ready to give the other guy a turn at bat, let's see what the Republican can do.
No comments:
Post a Comment