I stopped paying attention to presidential conventions several years ago. I don't care about all of the blah, blah, blah, and outright lies. That said, the media is in such a tizzy, I have been bombarded with it on radio and TV against my will.
Is it me, or is Mitt Romney sporting Ronald Reagan's hair cut; parted on the other side? It has been that way for at least the past 3.5 years of the campaign. Listening to what Romney says, the hair doesn't make the man.
Yes, we all deserve better than the government we have today. Yes, America is the greatest country in the world . . . for now. Yes, America was founded in large part to try to create tomorrow's prosperity, not redistribute today's. Anyone who has been paying any attention at all, knows that Mitt Romney is a good family man, a successful businessman, and a charitable man.
But in my mind, the most fundamental question is, what does Mitt Romney stand for?
I follow politics in much the same way I follow the Indianapolis Colts. Yet the only thing I have been able to discern for certain about Mitt Romney is "I'm not Barack Obama." Perhaps that is the only thing that counts. But I would like to know more.
I can't help but be reminded that the mantra "hope and change" was a slogan crafted to avoid taking a specific stand on anything but invite everyone to fill in the blanks with their own subjective desires. In his own way, Mitt Romney has campaigned in a similar fashion. The candidates who proposed specific plans didn't make it through the primaries.
Where does Mitt Romney stand on taxes? What about abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and illegal immigration? I can't help but feel that his campaign is trying very hard to allow the conservatives to hang their hopes on him while giving the wink and nod to the Northeastern and West Coast establishment types.
What is Mitt Romney's position on the war in Afghanistan and his position on international jihad? These things can't be ignored. Any position taken is going to have negative consequences. But if he is to be our leader in chief, don't we deserve to know?
Mitt Romney is proclaimed to be "Mr. Fix-it" when it comes to matters economic. His track record in business and investing substantiates the claim. But let's be candid. Presidents get way too much credit for good economic times and too much blame for bad.
The primary problem maker, or problem solver, is the Congress. Even the problems caused by administrative agencies like EPA, OSHA, DNR, IRS, FTC, EEC and all of the other alphabet soup can be fixed by Congress since statutes trump all administrative rules or can even abolish an administrative agency entirely. But how do you hold 535 representatives to account? After all, my guy or gal isn't the problem; it's all of the other ones.
How does Mitt Romney propose to re-start the economy? He says that "is job one." But as one of the governed, don't I have the right to know the plan before I cast my vote? Will he urge Congress to lower taxes? Will he repeal administrative rules, which are strangling businesses? Or will he simply tinker with, and twist things, to represent his own vision of how it should be done?
Over and over I hear the song lyric, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" from the song, "Won't Get Fooled Again."
There are a few things we do know. President Obama has been endorsed openly or subtly by the governments of China, Russia, Egypt, Iran, and Venezuela. We know that our relationship with Israel is at an all time low. We know that Mitt Romney has stated over and over that he will repeal ObamaCare even though it is substantially similar to the law he proposed and passed as Governor of Massachusetts.
We also know that virtually everyone who knows Mitt Romney asserts that he is a man of impeccable personal integrity. That, however, is no guarantee about any political philosophy, proposed programs, or success in governance. It nevertheless is the one characteristic that our founders stated over and over in speeches and writing was the most important characteristic for an American leader.
As is so often the case, we are not invited to pick the most qualified candidate. The real question is "who is the least worst candidate?" In a week or so, we will be similarly verbally and visually assaulted by the Democrats. I wonder what they will say.