Friday, April 13, 2012

Mr. Romney vs. Mr. Obama

It's Friday the 13th and today Mitt Romney addressed the Annual Meeting of the National Rifle Association, which drew more than 60,000 gun enthusiasts to St. Louis.   Along with normal NRA convention business such as a chance to inspect the latest in personal weaponry, this year's show includes a feast of tough political attacks against the current incumbent of the White House.

"This November, we face a defining decision," Romney told a large crowd on the floor inside Edward Jones Dome, the home of the St. Louis Rams. "I am offering a real choice and a new beginning," he said. During his 1994 Senate race, Romney said: "I don't line up with the NRA." And in his first presidential bid, he falsely claimed that he had been endorsed by the NRA and was later forced to backtrack.

Romney was roundly mocked in that race for claiming to be a lifelong hunter of "small varmints" like rabbits and rodents. This time around, though, things are a bit different, NRA members who watched Romney's speech seemed not to care about Romney's record on guns, nor did they complain that he might not have been their first choice in the Republican race.

Romney is in undisdputed possession of the prime requirement to be president as far as most GOP and NRA members are concerned:  he is not Barack Obama.  NRA President Wayne LaPierre addressed the crowd before Romney spoke and LaPierre's message is the one which most of the far-right crowd keeps echoing, "We know if President Obama gets a second term, America as we know it will be on it's way to being lost forever," LaPierre said.  The NRA members answered back with lusty applause.

It appears to me that this contest is between two men who are very much alike and in many ways very different from the voters whom they are hoping to attract. Both men are highly intelligent and exceptionally well educated. Both belong to an unpopular minority (unpopular with some of the population, but certainly not all); Mr. Obama's minority status is an accident of birth and not something that he could change in the event that he might desire to do so, while Mr. Romney's minority status is one of religion and is one that he could change if he wished to do so.

Both men are high-achievers and are possessed of an exceptional drive to accomplish their objectives. Both men have managed to amass a not inconsiderable fortune in money and, obviously, have reached the very pinnacle of achievement by being in contention for the presidency of the USA. Mitt Romney is not very experienced at, nor very good at being in second place and I think it's fair to make the same observation with regard to Barack Obama.

It's true, it seems fair to surmise, that there are serious differences in what type of executive branch we would get with Romney as President when compared to Obama's administration. The major difference that is apparent in the two men is that they have a profound difference of opinion as to who should bear the cost of governing the country.  Obama has the rather simplistic idea that it would be logical for the people who have money to pay a lot of the costs, he seems to base that on the idea that they not only have benefitted from the country but, well, they have money.

Romney's idea, in stark contrast, seems to be that if the people with the money are allowed to continue to retain 75% to 90% of the earnings from that capital; that eventually, "in the fullness of time.", as the Mormons like to say, huge amounts of that money will permeate through the manufacturers to the shop-keepers and eventually into the pockets of the stock-clerks and janitors and hamburger makers; at which time we can have them pay the interest on the country's debts; to Mr. Romney and his friends as most of that 75% to 90% of the income from their capital.

And, as an additional benefit, all those stock-clerks and janitors and hamburger makers will be renting apartments from Mr. Romney and his friends, buying cars from Mr. Romney and his friends, attending movies at cinema complexes owned by Mr. Romney and his friends, borrowing money for student loans for their children from Mr. Romney and his friends (with government guaranty of repayment, of course) while actually being employed by Mr. Romney and his friends...

Should they become ill the stock-clerks, janitors and hamburger makers will, if they can get together enough money, be treated at hospitals owned by Mr. Romney and his friends using drugs manufactured by companies owned by Mr. Romney and his friends.  In the event the treatment fails they will be hauled from the funeral homes owned by Mr. Romney and his friends in hearses manufactured by Mr. Romney and his friends and fueled by gasoline purchased from Mr.Romney and his friends, to interment in a crypt owned by, and rented in perpetuity from, Mr. Romney and his friends.

And; the "national debt" will never, ever be repaid. It will only have the interest paid and be added to from time to time to purchase more stuff from Mr. Romney and his friends with money borrowed from Mr. Romney and his friends.  Capisce?

No comments: