Why Obama and not Romney. Their Perspectives. 

In an article on God's Politics A blog by Jim Wallis and Friends Eugene Cho in his article Thou Shalt Follow These 10 Commandments for the Presidential Election, said "I’m not suggesting that the elections aren’t important. They are. They always are. There is much at stake. But in truth, they’re always advertised as the most important election in human history that will change the trajectory of all things for eternity."

If one looks at the country from a distance and as a whole this appears to be true. However if one looks at segments of the population or at individuals the story appears to be different. Extrapolating from what has been said on the campaign trail by the Romney organization much of the Social Safety net would be shreaded. The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) would be repealed and replaced by a voucher system. The likely outcome of that would be that individuals with serious (read expensive) illnesses could easily eat through the voucher and then would be personally responsible for the balance (read this as bankrupt individuals, loss of homes,etc.) 

Another of the possible examples is tax policy. During the campaign Romney has indicated that taxes would be raised on middle income and working class families and lowered on the wealthy. Their theory is that the wealthy would then take that money that they don't pay in taxes and invest it in industry and therefor create jobs. It is a good theory except for one problem; in the real world it does not work. History tells us this is true. What has happened when it was tried? One example is the Koch  Brothers. As their tax rate decreased so did the number of people working in their various companies. Another example; investors took what they did not have to pay in taxes, invested it in companies, moved the companies over seas to places like China and, oh yes, created jobs there. Any other left over money that was not paid in taxes was sheltered in offshore tax havens such as the Bahamas or the Caiman Islands. 

Then there is the attitude of the upper 1% that has been on display during the campaign that inadvertently shows through. Governor Romney's comment that his wife had "several" Cadillacs or the need for him to have a car elivator in on of his homes illustrates this. Another illustration is his suggestion that children who want to go to college should borrow the money from their parents. That isn't realistic in my world and it is not realistic in the world of most people in this country.  The problem here is not that success is bad or envied. The problem is that Romney and many in his economic class have lost touch with the vast majority of the population in the US and what life is like for them; if indeed they ever knew. They have an attitude of entitlement. 

The idea that the US would not crumble into dust no matter who is elected president is probably true. What is also true however is that life for the vast majority of people in this country will be far more difficult and much less fulfilling with the election of Romney to the presidency. For the people at the bottom of our economic ladder the resulting Romney presidency would be devistating if not life threatening. If you think life threatening is to extreme an argument consider his assertion that FEMA should be broken up with the responsibilities turned over to state and local authorities. That would have worked well during our most recent natural disaster huricane Sandy wouldn't it.  

The re-election of President Obama however would be the exact opposite affect of what is described above. President Obama's life story is much different than Romney's. His background is that of a middle income working class family, His understands their struggles, both economic and personal. The programs he has managed to have passed, without the help of a reluctant Republican legislature, reflects that understanding. If the president of the United States is to represent the majority of the citizens of the US then the choice of President Obama is clear. 

LET US REVIEW

     The presidential election is nearly upon us. We have heard the give and take betwen President Obama and Governer Romney and their ideas have been placed before us. Decision time. How do we go about evaluating the two contestants and making that choice. Is it simply on the plans and proposed programs that they have put before us? Or is it the policies that the two men have put into place in their two administrations or perhaps the life experiences of these individuals?
     The plans and proposed programs give us key as to what their administrations might look like. But    this is really insufficient information because they will need legislative help to advance these agendas and, as we know, the legislature often changes proposed laws through compromise and their own self interest or the interest of their constituency.
     So perhaps the policies of their administrations points us to the possible shape of life under a country with either a Romney or Obama as president. In the case of Governor Romney because, for example, he supported and worked to pass a health care program for the state of Mass. we could speculate that he had the interest of the citizens of the state as a priority. This however seems inaccurate because during his most recent run for the presidency he has disavowed "Obama Care" when he was appealing to the extreme right wing of the Republican party. That is until the second debate when he backed away from that position and seemed to say that the Affordable Care Act was not such a bad idea. He also talks about how through bipartisanship and working with the Democrats in Mass he was able to pass legislation. Then we belatedly discover that during his one term tenure there he issued 800 vetoes; hardly a sign of cooperation with the other party. These examples and others cited by commentators indicate that we can tell nothing about the future would hold in a Romney administration because he changes positions depending on the expediency of the moment.
     The future with an Obama administration is however much clearer based on what he has already accomplished. Let us look again at the Affordable Care Act. Considering the President's experience as a child seeing his mother who had to fight from her death bed with an insurance company to pay the bills that they were obligated to pay. This affected him and motivated him to work tirelessly for health care reform and to stay with it not because it was easy but because it was the right thing to do. It was doubly difficult because certain elements of the health care industry, such as the drug and insurance companies, saw that their excessive profits and questionable practices were under attack. The President because of his life experience was and is more concerned with the welfare of people and less concerned with the profits of already wealthy companies and corporations.
     The above two paragraphs clearly indicate that one candidate (Romney) is only interested in the expediency of the moment and how it benefits him. Conversely they indicate that the welfare of lindividuals motivated President Obama.
     You may say that the above is insufficient evidence to make a decision about who to vote for. How else can we evaluate these two men and their fitness to hold the office of the president? If history points to the future and the actions of individuals and to what they value lets look at the earlier lives of these two men.
     First there is Governor Romney who was the moving force behind Bain Capitol. What was the "principle" that moved that company along? Profit for those at the top of the company. They would buy a company, move in, and load it with debt. If somehow the company was able to survive this excessive debt (usually accomplished by firing many individuals, cutting benefits, and generally making life miserable for workers) they would take the profits, sell the company again, and run with the profits. The more common cenario however was to strip the company of all value, take the employees pensions, and benefits, fire them and (again) run with the profits. Their main concern, probably only, concern was profits for themselves with no consideration for the people that were left behind jobless.
     Now consider President Obama. While he was a student at Harvard he was the editor of the Law Review, a prestigious position. Many others who have been the editor have gone on to very lucrative    positions with Wall Street or DC law firms. President Obama however decided to return to Chicago to become a community organizer and help the less fortunate in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods. This was a position that was far from lucrative. His motivation had to be to help care for "the lost and the least".
     The original question was how do we go about evaluating the two contestants? Past performance and life values demonstrated by their pursuits is an excellent indicator. ("You will know them by their fruits.") Do you want a president that considers the profit motive the highest calling and accomplishment that one can attain? Or do you want a president who puts others first, who considers people and their welfare to be the highest calling and accomplishment. Personally I have no difficulty making this decision and I will be honored to cast my vote for President Obama.                          

Religious Tolerance

Browsing through a book that I had read some time ago I came across this quote:
"I do not believe that any faith, including my own, monopolizes human understanding of God. I believe that God created and embraces all humankind, and that religious bigotry against anyone is more than uncivilized, it is in opposition to Christianity."

From Faith and Politics page 50 by Senator John Danforth (A former Republican senator from Missouri and an ordained Episcopal priest.)

What Sister Simone Campbell from Nuns on the Bus had to say at the Democratic Convention.

Debate fact check

     I wrote this the day after the first presidential debate:
"It is true that the President did not do well last night if one is looking at style (i.e. appearance only). Unfortunately, that is the thing that most casual, uninformed voters look at. But if one takes a moment or two to look at what is im

portant, namely facts, it is clear that Gov. Romney chooses his "facts" based on what audience he feels he is currently talking to. See for example his comments about the 47% of the population when he speaks to his rich (fat cat) contributors and then the next day says no he is interested in 100% of the population only because he is concerned that his previous 47% comment will loose him support and votes, which it should. President Obama,on the other hand, is consistent in his policy statements and concern for individuals.

     This is,however, not my opinion alone. If you are concerned about facts more than style I suggest that you click the Debate fact check below to learn the truth behind the rhetoric."

      Now, six days before the next in the series of presidential debates, the pundits are talking about a jump in the polls for Romney. Almost all of them attribute this to "style points". It is frightening to consider that the electorate is so shallow that what it primarly looks at is style and not substance. It is doubly frightening in this election because if a President Romney becomes a reality the citizens of this country will, through experience, come to understand what it is like to live in a country where the rich receive all of the economic benefits and the middle and working classes are left to fight for the crumbs that are left under the oligarchs tables. If you think that this is not true consider what Romney said in his 47% comments when he said that they (the 47%) think that they are entitled to medical care and food. Some people are not entitled to food; really Governor Romney? 

Debate fact check