The other day I was reading an article in which the author discussed the effectiveness of receiving email endorsements for President Barack Obama from political and public figures like Sandra Fluke and Jessica Alba.
If you truly believe that Jessica Alba is an authority on the economy, or politics in general, then the Republican Party is not for you. Let’s be honest—being a Republican is not cool. We are not renowned for our stylish clothes. We do not listen to cool music. Most famous people hate us. Yet, Republicans merit nearly half of this nation’s votes each year, and I guarantee you, it is not just the elderly.
We are a group that is powerful and united in our belief that America is the land of equal opportunity. We are a group that claims responsibility for our actions. So why should you join our forces and vote for Romney/Ryan in 2012?
The short and simple answer is the economy. We can’t afford another four years of debt. With an unemployment rate of over 8 percent as of August and a national debt upwards of $16 trillion, something clearly needs to change. Mitt Romney plans to cap government spending at 20 percent of our GDP, and his website explains his detailed plan to get more Americans working. The past four years have been a disaster for the U.S. fiscally, and the President has done everything but claim responsibility—rather, he simply points fingers. When it comes to the economy (job growth, debt, and taxes specifically), citizens who want to see an America that is fiscally responsible will be voting for Romney/Ryan.
If you are like me and you are decidedly not an economist, some other issues may be on the front of your mind. Republicans cannot always avoid social issues, so I will discuss three “hot-button” ones.
First, abortion. The first step in understanding the pro-life position of the Republican Party is recognizing the role the government should play in the lives of Americans. The government is an institution that tries to establish a moral standard for society, while simultaneously protecting citizens. There is no better example of a government fulfilling its purpose than protecting the life of the unborn. The government’s purpose is to ensure that our society respects life at all ends of the spectrum—this does not only mean fetuses, but also those in our society who are deemed “unwanted.” The government must foster an attitude that encourages people to care for and respect those in all walks of life. This includes safeguarding citizens by protecting rights and dismantling systems that work solely to destroy life.
Second, one of the biggest areas of criticism for the Republican Party is its stance on gay marriage. This, I believe, is a misconception. Within the GOP, same-sex marriage is truly a generational issue. While many of our parents and grandparents may strongly believe that those who identify as homosexual should not be permitted to marry, I have come across few in our generation who support that position. So please, do not assume that all Republicans hate homosexuals. Instead, understand that the Republican Party is moving in the direction of accepting same-sex marriage. Therefore, if you justify your anti-Republican stance because you support same-sex marriage, it would be a decision that lacks foresight and is based on outdated stereotypes.
Third, Republicans work towards fair and legal means for more immigrants to become citizens of the United States. The first step to fixing the system is establishing an easier, legal way for people to immigrate. Romney plans to fix the current worker visa system, and he’s not the only Republican working for immigration rights. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) successfully wrote a bill which increased the number of South Americans who could migrate to America, a number which before was capped at 7 percent. At some point, the liberal rhetoric can only take you so far.
Backing away from non-social issues, foreign policy is a prominent topic in the 2012 election, with terrorist attacks in Libya, the breakdown of the Syrian state, and the growing possibility of a nuclear Iran among our top concerns. Once again, Obama has demonstrated his inability to establish himself as a powerful figure overseas. His response to threats on U.S. lives was demure. Yet, in some sense, we cannot blame him; he’s simply inexperienced at dealing with a conflict of this severity.
Romney’s policies regarding America’s future interactions with individual countries are clearly outlined. For example, in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, Romney is committed to making available technical assistance that will encourage good governance and financial management. He furthermore would task a “regional director” with the specific purpose of fostering stable governments in the Middle East.
You are right, Jessica Alba; Mitt Romney cannot dance. He cannot play basketball. He does not have a list of celebrities who support him, and he probably does not know anything about hip hop music. But Mitt Romney does know tax policy. He knows how to build a company and make it successful. He understands the importance of protecting our interests overseas. And those are the qualities that count in a president.
The Unemployment rate is BELOW 8%. Lower now than when President Obama took Office. Why would you write an article in October and report the Unemployment Rate from August? That seem disingenuous at best.
Out of the FIVE most recent Presidents, three of them RAISED annual Federal Deficits, and two of them LOWERED the Deficit from where it was when they took office. Reagan, Bush and G.W. Bush raised deficits. Clinton and Obama lowered it. It took Clinton two terms, but Clinton BALANCED the budget! Clinton also had a better record of creating jobs than Reagan and Bush COMBINED. Obama already has a better Jobs Record in ONE TERM than G.W. Bush’s record over TWO TERMS. Over two terms, G.W. Bush saw the number of private sector jobs in the USA (the ones that Republicans say count toward driving our economy) actually CONTRACT and SHRINK by more than 600,000 jobs! President Obama has seen a consistent GROWTH in Private Sector Jobs by more than 5.2 MILLION over the last 31 months. Obama has now NETTED about 400,000 jobs to our economy.
Lets talk about Abortion and respecting life. As long as women are raped, abortion needs to be legal. As long as women can DIE from complications due to pregnancy, abortion needs to be legal. And the idea of setting up tribunals, judges or bureaucrats to determine which women have been “legitimately raped,” or whose lives are “legitimately endangered” enough to have an abortion is HORRIFIC. I respect women more than that. Women are capable of making that moral choice on their own. That CHOICE should be between a woman, her doctor and her God. Trying to insinuate the STATE into that tragic and painful choice is an infringement on LIBERTY and PRIVACY that seems downright Orwellian in it’s dystopian cynicism. I respect women and I respect the LIVES of women more than that.
If we want to practically LOWER the numbers of abortions sought in the USA, we should be doing all we can to put the TOOLS of SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY (contraception) in the hands of as many women as possible. That will lower the number of unplanned pregnancies, and significantly lower the number of abortions, without limiting the FREEDOM of women! To that end, making contraception STANDARD preventive medical coverage for nearly every health insurance policy is great news! Yeah, Obamacare. Yeah, Sandra Fluke!
In Minnesota and “Anti-Gay Marriage” Constitutional Amendment was shoehorned onto the ballot as a way to drive Conservative Voters to the polls. Republican Strategists have admitted that. So, the Republican Party is trying to ride a wave of anti-gay fear mongering and paranoia into office. It’s despicable.
Obama deported illegal immigrants at a higher rate than G.W. Bush. Obama strengthened border patrols. Obama is working to pass immigration reform. And Obama took a brave stand in favor of “American Dreamers,” when Republicans in Congress obstinately refused to work with him on the issue. Obama’s record on immigration is stronger than Republican’s.
Ask Osama bin Laden if Obama has failed to establish himself as a powerful figure overseas. Ask Qaddafi. Obama moved our military out of Iraq. And he has established a timetable for moving us out of Afghanistan. After public criticizing Obama for that time table for MONTHS, Mitt Romney totally flip-flopped on the issue and now agrees TOTALLY with Obama on every substantive issue of foreign policy. That is because Romney can see that Obama’s ideas on foreign policy are stronger.
I can’t find any reference to Jessica Alba saying that Romney is a poor dancer or basketball. Did you make up that she said that, just to have a straw-man to attack?
Now, if I promised you that future Democrats will solve all of the worlds problems without any trouble, and I told you not to vote against the current Democrats because that’s stereotypical and lacks foresight, would that make much sense?
If not, then why should I vote Republican based on their future stance on gay marriage? I’d rather vote for the platforms as they stand.
“The government’s purpose is to ensure that our society respects life at all ends of the spectrum—this does not only mean fetuses, but also those in our society who are deemed “unwanted.” The government must foster an attitude that encourages people to care for and respect those in all walks of life.”
Is this coming from the party that opposes same sex marriage (RIGHT NOW at least)? The party that has tried to raise post civil war voting restrictions? The same party that promotes a president that doesn’t care about 47% of the government? The party that wants to turn the healthcare process (particularly for the elderly) into a voucher system??? Cmon now.
In fact, Mitt Romney has many celebrity backers you just won’t see them until the Forbes 500 comes out… this is a disingenuous article similar to the run-around platform “My Man Mitt” is running on.
Excellent article. You are the best.
I don’t understand why the GOP should apologize for opposing gay marriage. I don’t want gays to marry. I believe the government has the right to regulate marriages. Therefore, I vote for the party that opposes gay marriage. Simple enough.
I am a Democrat and support Democratic platform ideals, but I oppose gay marriage. Shoot me.
“We are a group that is powerful and united in our belief that America is the land of equal opportunity.”
That’s a bunch of malarkey!
Maggie,
Your argument re: same-sex marriage is illogical and offensive.
I appreciate your assurance that the Republican Party is coming around to accepting same-sex marriage at some indeterminate point in the future. But the Republican candidate on Tuesday’s ballot is not some Republican from the future–it’s Mitt Romney. So in discussing his candidacy and the same-sex marriage issue, let’s stick to the policy proposals that he’s actually advocating in this election. Time for a reality check: THEY’RE ANTI-GAY!
Mitt Romney thinks the Defense of Marriage Act is good law and would have his Justice Department defend it! He believes it’s completely legitimate for the federal government to refuse to recognize legal marriages between people of the same sex.
Mitt Romney is also an advocate of the Federal Marriage Amendment! He actually thinks (and says out loud!) that we should amend the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
THESE POLICIES are what’s ased on outdated stereotypes, not voting against them. If you believe in equality for gay Americans, you can’t vote for Mitt Romney. Period.
As a side note, we don’t refer to gay and lesbian people as homosexuals. Check out Wikipedia or the Associated Press Stylebook if you don’t understand why it’s offensive.
Paul Courtney
Former Chairman (2009), Georgetown University College Republicans
“President Obama didn’t want any symbols to appear in the photo that might suggest that there’s any higher authority than him.”
We all say idiotic things, Paul.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/georgetown_students_react_to_white_house_request_to_cover_jesus_name/
Keep in mind that most of Romney’s comments were from the primaries where he was obviously playing to the far right. That’s just politics. Mitt is extremely moderate and his record in MA shows this to be true. Moderate Mitt is nothing new, and it certainly doesn’t involve an agenda revolved around only keeping gays from getting married or women from getting abortions. He’s about the economy and that’s what needs to be fixed right now. Abortion and Gay rights are out of his control; he doesn’t make constitutional amendments (or even approve them as POTUS) and would not become the Supreme Court if elected. So keep practical government in mind and understand where a president would actually have a role–the economy and foreign policy. Two areas where Obama has failed over the last four years and where Maggie believes Mitt would do a better job.
Ad hominem attacks are the poorest of informal fallacies. I’d hope Hoyas would show a little more respect for each other when having discussions such as these.
As for your assertion that issues such as abortion and gay rights are beyond the control of the president, this undervalues the influence a president can have on the Congressional agenda. (See, e.g., presidential vetoes and veto threats; bully pulpits; presidential proposals of legislation.) While a president obviously doesn’t “become the Supreme Court if elected,” he nominates members of the federal judiciary from the Supreme Court down to district courts.
Further, the “it was the primaries” defense is not only weak, but frightening. If a candidate is willing to change his views to please whatever demographic stands before him, what is to stop him from being so influenced by lobbying efforts as president?
I don’t have the energy to catalog the reasons why Mitt has not proven himself a strong candidate for boosting the economy or representing the interests of the United States overseas. Suffice it to say, if Mitt won’t explain in detail how he will lower the deficit while making permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates and cutting corporate tax rates, Americans shouldn’t trust him with a roll of quarters. And if Mitt can’t visit our closest ally, the UK, without insulting them and having the most conservative newspaper there label him “Mitt the Twit,” Americans shouldn’t trust him with any decision that could impact the lives of military members who so bravely fight for our country.
Congrats, you know how to use Google! I’ll be the first to agree with you that my comment about Obama and that manufactured “IHS cover-up” controversy was pretty idiotic. But I’m not really sure how it’s at all relevant here.
Romney’s proposal of anti-gay policies has not been limited to the primaries (Nor would that at all excuse them–I won’t as easily dismiss his decision to deny the dignity of an entire class of Americans as “just politics.”). In case you are confused about the platform he’s running on in the 2012 general election (take note please, Maggie), just check out the “Values” section of his website:
“As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.” (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values)
He has promised to CHAMPION it! And in case you haven’t been following closely, just within the past two weeks the Romney campaign has REAFFIRMED its commitment to pursuing the Federal Marriage Amendment. When Buzzfeed picked up on comments that Romney spokesperson Bay Buchanan made to The Advocate, which seemingly suggested Mitt might think gay marriage was a “state issue” (http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/10/17/3-debates-0-questions-lgbt-issues), the campaign made sure to clarify:
“Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.” (http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/romney-campaign-backs-off-federal-marraige-amendme)
This all happened between October 17 and 20, after all three debates and WELL AFTER the primary. No matter how you spin it, no matter how accepting people of our generation and in the Georgetown College Republicans may be, THIS is the policy that Mitt Romney believes in and is running on as the Republican Party’s 2012 nominee. You can’t escape it.
You seem to have a poor understanding of the power of the presidency. Gay rights are not at all out of the President’s control. Let’s look at just a few things Obama has done/is doing to materially improve the lives of gay and lesbian Americans:
*Advocated the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and signed it into law. (Romney was against this, and Paul Ryan voted against it.)
*Opposes the Defense of Marriage and has ordered the Justice Department not to defend it. (Romney believes it’s good law, and has pledged to defend it.)
*Supports a Federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act (Romney was for it and is now against it).
*Prohibited any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding from denying visitation rights to partners of gays and lesbians (Romney thinks this is a state issue, I believe).
*Granted some benefits to partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.
You’re right, Mitt Romney “doesn’t make constitutional amendments.” But he can use the bully pulpit of the presidency to “champion” an amendment, as he has promised to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment, and use the office to try to give the idea some legitimacy. Now, I honestly don’t believe that the Federal Marriage Amendment has any political traction–maybe I’m wrong, but I think if Republicans couldn’t pass it ten years ago they’re certainly not going to do it now. But the fact that he’s willing to stand as the Republican nominee and act like this is a legitimate amendment is outright offensive to anyone who believes in equality, or even just in the integrity of our Constitution. He has shown an utter disrespect toward gay Americans and a total indifference in the quality of their lives.
You’re also right that Mitt Romney wouldn’t “become the Supreme Court if elected.” But the President–and only the President–has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. We’d have to live with a Romney appointee for a generation beyond his 4 to 8 year tenure. And chances are, if he appoints someone in the mold of Scalia (you know, the one who thinks it’s OK to ban gay people from even having sex), that person would likely not be an advocate of gay Americans. It’s not a gamble supporters of equality should be willing to take.
There’s also just a lot to be said for symbolism. Words really matter. Do you think otherwise? When we elect a president, we are choosing the leader of the free world. As simple as it was, it meant a lot to have the sitting President of the United States record a video for the It Gets Better project. It meant a lot to have the sitting President of the United States affirm that he believes gay and lesbian Americans should have the right to marry. Every time Barack Obama has gone on the record to affirm his commitment to gay and lesbian Americans, he has affirmed their civil equality and dignity and human worth. It means A LOT to have the President of the United States say that he thinks you are equal, especially when there are a lot of people who for inexplicable reasons don’t agree!!
What do you think the effect would be of a President Romney, who would go around saying we should keep DOMA and write a ban on gay marriage into the Constitution? How does that make gay people feel about their self worth? What does it do to their perceptions of their equality? What does it do to other people’s ideas about them? What effect would it have on all the gay kids struggling with coming out, to have a President who goes around campaigning on taking away any chance they might have at happiness? I’m sorry, but Mitt Romney’s policies on same-sex marriage are totally backwards and are an explicit endorsement of cultural homophobia. How in the world is the Republican Party ever going to evolve on gay rights if this guy is elected President?
\The Unemployment rate is BELOW 8%. Lower now than when President Obama took Office.\
Is that supposed to be considered a significant accomplishment? Economies tend to recover naturally over time, even with no government intervention. The speed of the recovery (and how much, if any, of that Obama should be held accountable for) should be the topic of discussion. The Reagen administration dealt with comparable unemployment rates *without* the ability to use expansionary monetary policy due to absurd inflation rates, and still managed a speedier recovery. Does this mean Reagan’s policies are better? Not necessarily- but it does mean that you can’t just point at the numbers and say that they prove your point.