President Barack Obama will be reelected in 2012. That’s a pretty valid conclusion one can reach from the New Hampshire and Iowa election results. If the electorate will keep ignoring the facts about the frontrunner, then Mitt Romney will be the nominee.
Romney took off into first place in New Hampshire with close to 40 percent of the vote according to Politico (http://www.politico.com/index.html). His margin of victory is unprecedented. But wait a minute, who is Romney? Is he truly the most electable Republican candidate? No. Romney is a chameleon. He changes his political positions to pander to the electorate and it’s not as if he’s hiding it. His change in opinions is far too obvious.
Mitt Romney was a liberal Republican Governor from Massachusetts. Romney was pro-choice, supported gun control laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and created an individual mandate idea for healthcare reform, which shaped Obamacare’s own mandate (http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm).
And the list of changed positions keeps going. This article is far too short to explain all of them. So the question is, why do Republicans vote for Romney? Romney is the epitome of a politician. People don’t trust government anymore because of politicians like Romney.
There is a deficit of trust as presidential candidate Jon Huntsman puts it (http://www.jon2012.com/index.php/hpress/news/huntsman_campaign_releases_trust_speech_excerpts_web_video). According to Real Clear Politics, only 13 percent of the U.S. approves of Congress. President Obama fares better with a 44.5 percent approval (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/). Yet, if you ask many Americans today, they really don’t know whom to trust.
And who’s to blame them? Republicans in the last decade created trillions of dollars of debt and endorsed American imperialism throughout the Middle East. Conservatives are still mad and feel foreign to the Republican Party. Hence, they are unsatisfied with the 2012 Republican field because they are afraid that these candidates will resemble that infamous Bush decade.
Democrats have also very little to be proud of. They controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate in Obama’s first two years in office and got little to nothing done. The status quo is well still the status quo. The only things Democrats have done in the last years is put America deeper in debt and inflate the size of the federal government with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
As a result, there is a lot of anger out there. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party may be different in what they propose but it’s the same kind of frustration. People are fed up. They want a candidate that will put country first and politics last. President Obama is not that candidate and neither is Mitt Romney. They represent the status quo that annoys Americans. It’s time to stop where this country is headed and look into candidates that truly offer a different path.
Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are two candidates that have consistent records. Paul’s newsletters from the 1990s create a lot of concerns. In fact, one of his issues posted that there was federal cover up of AIDS (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/23/news/la-pn-in-90s-newsletter-appeal-ron-paul-warns-of-coming-race-war-20111223). There are many other inflammatory quotes. As for Huntsman, he’s a man that has a lot of diplomatic experience serving under Obama as US Ambassador to China. He has a consistent conservative record as Governor of Utah and was reelected to a second term by 78 percent. The people of Utah clearly liked him.
So, what’s up, Republicans? Think twice. Even though Ron Paul has a questionable background, his policies do not represent the status quo. Neither does Huntsman (and this guy doesn’t have a questionable background, look at him first). Romney is not the answer. If he’s elected, conservatives who are fed up will not vote for him. As much as they might not like Obama, Romney doesn’t excite them. He just angers them more.