Anyone who has been following my posts on facebook and Twitter knows that I have been an undecided voter until recently. Many have been surprised and/or unhappy with my choice to back Gov. Mitt Romney and still others are baffled by my decision to not only vote for, but also to campaign for, him in the final days leading up to today's presidential election. I decided to write this post to explain my decision and recent actions. I know many close to me disagree fervently with my decision and have asked how I can support someone they can't. This post is an attempt to describe my thinking.
I actually became a Romney supporter in 2007, after I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney. Before reading this book, I was not supportive of his run for president. I wasn't going to be a campaign supporter just because I share the same religious faith. I take my civil duty of electing public officials seriously and I try to be as informed as I can be. Ultimately, I was convinced that Mitt Romney was the best choice for our next president and I was discouraged when he lost the race for the Republican nomination. I still wrote him in, however, on the ballot for the 2008 election because I was not impressed with either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama.
Over the past few years, I have become more and more moderate in my political thinking. I have also become far more informed about foreign policy, especially concerning the Middle East. There have been many times in which Romney has made comments about the Middle East that I have either considered inaccurate or potentially causing greater problems in the future if such ideas are followed. This has been the main reason why I became a fence sitter in this election and not a Romney enthusiast the second time around. Foreign policy--not Romney's but President Obama's-- is also one of the issues that led me back to supporting Romney.
I was already aware that both Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney had very similar foreign policies when it came to the Middle East and the last presidential debate made that clear. Certainly, there are differences between the candidates' complete foreign policies, but I'm most concerned with Middle East policy and I believe that carries the bulk of the concern for most Americans as well. Initially, I was willing to call a draw on this issue and focus on other issues to determine which candidate would receive my support. Unfortunately, on 11 September 2012, the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans during an attack on the Benghazi consulate, which has now been deemed a terrorist attack (click here for a Washington Post article synthesizing what we know about the attack).
It baffles me that there existed such a poor comprehension of the situation in Libya, especially with a post-revolution society that barely even has a governing body organized, let alone a security force that was supposed to help defend the consulate. I also can't fathom how there was such a break down in communication as far as mobilizing more security is concerned--not just as the attack was commencing, but also the repeated requests for an increase in security forces. The blame put on the House for only approving 90% of the budget doesn't explain this at all as the WP article explains above. It is impossible that the president was not made aware of the attack earlier than reported. In 1979, when the US embassy in Iran was being overrun, there was plenty of intelligence circulating the CIA, FBI and White House as those events were unfolding. 33 years later, with the advancements in technology and the president's propensity to use drones, there is no excuse for the delayed reactions outside of the consulate. I am not a conspiracy theorist or swallower, so I will not believe that the president did anything purposefully that resulted in the deaths during this attack. However, there is too much incompetence that was displayed during this attack for me to have any confidence that the president can be an effective Commander in Chief--the part of his job that concerns the control of the military and the protection of the US at home and abroad. It is one thing to work with legislators and generals to withdraw troops from an unpopular war and it is quite another to be able to make fast and quick decisions necessary to save American lives. Because my potential career path may include being in similar situations, this issue and major failure of the president and his administration is not something I can overlook. This earns Romney his first point. I don't know if he and his administration would have had a different outcome, but it is far easier to trust your life to someone who hasn't already failed the lives of others.
A while ago, I wrote a post about Senate Bill S 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, focusing on section 1031, which specifically allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens. President Obama said that he would work to alter this later after the bill was signed, but he has done nothing to my knowledge in this regard. Add this to the president's use of drones to assassinate terrorists, even those suspected terrorists who are US citizens, and there go the red flags again about his competence and decision making on the war on terror. (click here to read about a study conducted by Stanford University and New York University on the effects of drone warfare) I personally believe that such drone tactics are creating a new generation of people who will grow up hateful of the US for treating their lives like they are worth no more than a video game scenario. I also think such drone policies will show an increase of other nations using drone warfare and bring us back to the days when CIA, KGB and other national spies fought the Cold War through assassinations. Gov. Romney does support the use of drones as well, but he hasn't used them so far and he hasn't used them to assassinate US citizens like President Obama has.
I also give Romney credit for how he explained reducing extremism in the Middle East. During the third debate, Gov. Romney suggested it was necessary to reduce the influence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and that we can't just kill our way out of the situation. He didn't elaborate on his plan for doing this in his opening statement for this first section, but I began running through my head what needs to be done to accomplish this and the things I thought of were investing in education, economic development, and human rights. In Gov. Romney's follow up, he listed economic investment as #1 in his strategy, 2. education, 3. gender equality, 4. rule of law for civil society. I think this strategy is exactly the type a strategy needed to minimize the influence of extremists and prevent the youth in the Middle East and North Africa from joining extremist organizations. Stating this strategy also gave Romney points for me.
I honestly believe Mitt Romney has proven himself over and over again in his ability to turn things around and make them profitable. He did this with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, making it the first profitable Winter Olympics in history. He had a rate of 4% unemployment in Massachusetts. Because I think the economy is one of the most important issues of this election, I really leaned toward Gov. Romney on this issue.
I do think Republicans opened Mitt Romney up for the scare tactics about women's reproductive rights. There have been some very ridiculous things said about contraceptives and rape, which people ran with. I know Gov. Romney said that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but I don't believe he would ever do anything to make that happen if he became president. The biggest stretch was taking Romney's opposition to Obamacare's stipulation that employers needed to provide free contraceptive insurance for women and scaring women into thinking Romney wanted to deny them access to contraceptives. This wasn't the case as far as I understood it. The issue was not if women could have access to and use contraceptives, but rather if insurance companies should cover contraceptives at no extra cost to the insured, but to the added cost of the insurer. I personally feel that there is no problem with having contraceptives covered by insurance, but I do think that it should be an elective that is covered by an increased premium, unless the contraceptive is being used necessarily for other health issues (which I know happens often). I personally would like to see insurance become more like car insurance. There should be a limited amount of coverage that everyone should have, but then people can choose to add other types of coverage that would obviously raise premiums depending on what each individual wants covered.
I read many things recently that said a vote for Romney was a vote against civil rights for the LGBTQ community. I completely support the movement for marriage rights in this community and believe we will have equal rights within the next few years. I disagree a vote for Romney damages the possibility of gaining equal rights for the LGBTQ community. I don't think these rights will be granted by any action of the president. We are seeing states taking this issue into their own hands and many are passing laws legalizing gay marriage. There are four states voting tonight on this very issue. I am convinced that states, and then ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide to right the wrong of denying marriage equality to everyone.*
I'm not sure if I have now addressed all of the concerns that many have asked me. I went back to my facebook page to check, and it seems that some of the questions and comments have been deleted. Maybe people don't care anymore now that President Obama has been projected to win re-election. I still stand by my choice to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney for the reasons I have detailed here, but I now turn to a hope that the second term for President Obama is better than the first. I hope the change he promised in 2008 is realized within the next four years. For the sake of all Americans and many people across the world, I hope for a brighter and better future.
*(Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and probably Washington, which all had marriage equality on the ballot, have now legalized gay marriage according to predictions)
I actually became a Romney supporter in 2007, after I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney. Before reading this book, I was not supportive of his run for president. I wasn't going to be a campaign supporter just because I share the same religious faith. I take my civil duty of electing public officials seriously and I try to be as informed as I can be. Ultimately, I was convinced that Mitt Romney was the best choice for our next president and I was discouraged when he lost the race for the Republican nomination. I still wrote him in, however, on the ballot for the 2008 election because I was not impressed with either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama.
Over the past few years, I have become more and more moderate in my political thinking. I have also become far more informed about foreign policy, especially concerning the Middle East. There have been many times in which Romney has made comments about the Middle East that I have either considered inaccurate or potentially causing greater problems in the future if such ideas are followed. This has been the main reason why I became a fence sitter in this election and not a Romney enthusiast the second time around. Foreign policy--not Romney's but President Obama's-- is also one of the issues that led me back to supporting Romney.
I was already aware that both Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney had very similar foreign policies when it came to the Middle East and the last presidential debate made that clear. Certainly, there are differences between the candidates' complete foreign policies, but I'm most concerned with Middle East policy and I believe that carries the bulk of the concern for most Americans as well. Initially, I was willing to call a draw on this issue and focus on other issues to determine which candidate would receive my support. Unfortunately, on 11 September 2012, the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans during an attack on the Benghazi consulate, which has now been deemed a terrorist attack (click here for a Washington Post article synthesizing what we know about the attack).
It baffles me that there existed such a poor comprehension of the situation in Libya, especially with a post-revolution society that barely even has a governing body organized, let alone a security force that was supposed to help defend the consulate. I also can't fathom how there was such a break down in communication as far as mobilizing more security is concerned--not just as the attack was commencing, but also the repeated requests for an increase in security forces. The blame put on the House for only approving 90% of the budget doesn't explain this at all as the WP article explains above. It is impossible that the president was not made aware of the attack earlier than reported. In 1979, when the US embassy in Iran was being overrun, there was plenty of intelligence circulating the CIA, FBI and White House as those events were unfolding. 33 years later, with the advancements in technology and the president's propensity to use drones, there is no excuse for the delayed reactions outside of the consulate. I am not a conspiracy theorist or swallower, so I will not believe that the president did anything purposefully that resulted in the deaths during this attack. However, there is too much incompetence that was displayed during this attack for me to have any confidence that the president can be an effective Commander in Chief--the part of his job that concerns the control of the military and the protection of the US at home and abroad. It is one thing to work with legislators and generals to withdraw troops from an unpopular war and it is quite another to be able to make fast and quick decisions necessary to save American lives. Because my potential career path may include being in similar situations, this issue and major failure of the president and his administration is not something I can overlook. This earns Romney his first point. I don't know if he and his administration would have had a different outcome, but it is far easier to trust your life to someone who hasn't already failed the lives of others.
A while ago, I wrote a post about Senate Bill S 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, focusing on section 1031, which specifically allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens. President Obama said that he would work to alter this later after the bill was signed, but he has done nothing to my knowledge in this regard. Add this to the president's use of drones to assassinate terrorists, even those suspected terrorists who are US citizens, and there go the red flags again about his competence and decision making on the war on terror. (click here to read about a study conducted by Stanford University and New York University on the effects of drone warfare) I personally believe that such drone tactics are creating a new generation of people who will grow up hateful of the US for treating their lives like they are worth no more than a video game scenario. I also think such drone policies will show an increase of other nations using drone warfare and bring us back to the days when CIA, KGB and other national spies fought the Cold War through assassinations. Gov. Romney does support the use of drones as well, but he hasn't used them so far and he hasn't used them to assassinate US citizens like President Obama has.
I also give Romney credit for how he explained reducing extremism in the Middle East. During the third debate, Gov. Romney suggested it was necessary to reduce the influence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and that we can't just kill our way out of the situation. He didn't elaborate on his plan for doing this in his opening statement for this first section, but I began running through my head what needs to be done to accomplish this and the things I thought of were investing in education, economic development, and human rights. In Gov. Romney's follow up, he listed economic investment as #1 in his strategy, 2. education, 3. gender equality, 4. rule of law for civil society. I think this strategy is exactly the type a strategy needed to minimize the influence of extremists and prevent the youth in the Middle East and North Africa from joining extremist organizations. Stating this strategy also gave Romney points for me.
I honestly believe Mitt Romney has proven himself over and over again in his ability to turn things around and make them profitable. He did this with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, making it the first profitable Winter Olympics in history. He had a rate of 4% unemployment in Massachusetts. Because I think the economy is one of the most important issues of this election, I really leaned toward Gov. Romney on this issue.
I do think Republicans opened Mitt Romney up for the scare tactics about women's reproductive rights. There have been some very ridiculous things said about contraceptives and rape, which people ran with. I know Gov. Romney said that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but I don't believe he would ever do anything to make that happen if he became president. The biggest stretch was taking Romney's opposition to Obamacare's stipulation that employers needed to provide free contraceptive insurance for women and scaring women into thinking Romney wanted to deny them access to contraceptives. This wasn't the case as far as I understood it. The issue was not if women could have access to and use contraceptives, but rather if insurance companies should cover contraceptives at no extra cost to the insured, but to the added cost of the insurer. I personally feel that there is no problem with having contraceptives covered by insurance, but I do think that it should be an elective that is covered by an increased premium, unless the contraceptive is being used necessarily for other health issues (which I know happens often). I personally would like to see insurance become more like car insurance. There should be a limited amount of coverage that everyone should have, but then people can choose to add other types of coverage that would obviously raise premiums depending on what each individual wants covered.
I read many things recently that said a vote for Romney was a vote against civil rights for the LGBTQ community. I completely support the movement for marriage rights in this community and believe we will have equal rights within the next few years. I disagree a vote for Romney damages the possibility of gaining equal rights for the LGBTQ community. I don't think these rights will be granted by any action of the president. We are seeing states taking this issue into their own hands and many are passing laws legalizing gay marriage. There are four states voting tonight on this very issue. I am convinced that states, and then ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide to right the wrong of denying marriage equality to everyone.*
I'm not sure if I have now addressed all of the concerns that many have asked me. I went back to my facebook page to check, and it seems that some of the questions and comments have been deleted. Maybe people don't care anymore now that President Obama has been projected to win re-election. I still stand by my choice to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney for the reasons I have detailed here, but I now turn to a hope that the second term for President Obama is better than the first. I hope the change he promised in 2008 is realized within the next four years. For the sake of all Americans and many people across the world, I hope for a brighter and better future.
*(Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and probably Washington, which all had marriage equality on the ballot, have now legalized gay marriage according to predictions)
