November 2, 2012 | by WBadmin
Why I support Mitt Romney for president

By RICHARD GRENELL

The Obama campaign has spent millions of dollars over the last six months trying to define Mitt Romney as a radical far right politician. The presidential debates imploded that false narrative when millions of Americans saw Gov. Romney as thoughtful, judicious and almost singularly focused on fixing America’s struggling economy during the 90-minute live format.  The months of scripted and gross caricatures attacking Mitt from the Obama campaign seemed silly when Americans were able to see an unedited and real Romney.

Surprisingly, it was the 2012 presidential campaign of Barack Obama that has focused on contentious social issues at a time when the American electorate is demanding the federal government clean up its budget and start living within its means. The Obama campaign, however, ignored the voters’ will. They didn’t learn the lesson of the 2010 midterm elections when voters called for more conservative fiscal policies. Instead, the Obama team tried to launch class warfare, gender warfare, race warfare and anything else that might get the media talking about issues unrelated to the dismal U.S. economy. History will show that while the Obama campaign tried to use wedge issues to win re-election, the Romney campaign did not use divisive social issues to respond to their attacks. Instead, Romney stayed focused on the economy.  Despite what the Human Rights Campaign and the Obama team may say, Gov. Romney didn’t use the issues of gay marriage or abortion in this year’s presidential campaign.

Like many voters, I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position. I can support Gov. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies. I can be proud of President Obama’s personal support for gay marriage and still take exception to his national security and economic policies that have given the U.S. its first ever downgraded credit rating and weakened international standing. It’s puzzling why the gay left can’t bring itself to hold President Obama accountable for demanding money and votes from the gay community but not delivering on that support. We all know that Obama, like many politicians, will be forced to make change when his supporters demand it. Republican activists are demanding change from their leaders while gay Democrats are not. Republicans realize we have work to do; Democrats think their work is done.  The near silence from the gay left and their media allies when President Obama committed on MTV to NOT put forward gay marriage legislation in his second term was a sign that the Democratic Party takes gay voters for granted.

Millions of American voters will evaluate both candidates’ policies in total and come to the same conclusion I have: President Obama doesn’t deserve to be re-elected and Gov. Romney does. Voters should look closely at President Obama’s domestic and foreign policy failures before making their decision. Obama’s secret whispers to then-Russian President Medvedev for more flexibility on missile defense, his snubbing of Israel and other allies, the developing crisis in Syria he has ignored and his lack of a coherent Mexico policy are but a few reasons to not support the president. One needs to look no further than the brutal regimes of Ahmadinejad, Assad, al-Bashir and Kim to see that under Obama the U.S. has turned its back on too many that seek a better way of life. Allies like Turkey, India and Brazil openly ignore the U.S. while Obama looks to reward Russia with more concessions. And the recent Libya debacle on 9/11 only proves the president hasn’t been willing to make the hard and sometimes unpopular choices to ensure that America leads from the front. Sadly, under Obama, we’ve responded to our enemies and ignored our friends.

His domestic record, too, shows a lack of focus and seriousness on the problems we face.  The president’s continued deficit spending, his support for nationalized healthcare, his inability to offer an immigration policy and his denigration of capitalism prove he is too politically contrived and weak to deserve a second term. You can win a presidential race on hope but you can’t expect to win re-election on hope.

Americans who agree on the principles of self-reliance, capitalism, unapologetic U.S. global leadership and a government designed to do what the private sector can’t or won’t do should support Gov. Romney. President Obama, conversely, has demonstrated a willingness to abandon the entrepreneurial spirit that made America great while embracing a new era of government-centered decisions.

Richard Grenell served as spokesman for the last four U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations and served briefly as Mitt Romney’s national security spokesman.

15 Comments
  • That’s a good argument to vote against Obama but not a good enough argument to vote for mitt Romney.

  • Umm…are you serious?

  • It escapes me how anyone with a modicum of intelligence, let alone a gay man, could defend a man so completely lacking integrity as Mitt Romney. His only consistent belief is his conviction that he deserves to be president. “Trust me until after the election, then I will tell all,” is not a winning slogan, at least not with people who don’t base their votes simply on party labels. And that’s not even touching on the insane Republican Party platform that Romney signed off on. He and his are the third rail of this country’s efforts to rebuild itself and find a sane way through the challenges we face–touch them at your peril.

  • Grenell supports Romney even though Romney shit-canned him the second Bryan Fischer screamed that a homo had infiltrated the GOP. Sad sad Quisling.

    • What it looks like to me is a problem with "perception" rather than reality. In other words, Grenell supported Romney, but since the Religious Right would be turned off by him, he resigned for the good of the cause. I would do the same as a Catholic, legalized drug supporter, etc. if I knew I would tank the election. Not at all Quisling.

    • Not a Quisling? He certainly behaves as though he had a chronic case of Stockholm Syndrome.

  • I constantly scratching my head, wondering how any LBGT, or women for that matter, would vote for Romney, considering his and the Republican Party’s stance on issues that effect them deeply.

  • Romney spent the entire primary season staking out space as far to the right as possible, and fell well behind Obama as a result. His only path to getting close was to staking out a centrist position and repudiating the hard conservative policies of his party. We can assume two things from this:

    1) That the United States is NOT, as conservatives claim, a center-right nation. At most, we're a center-center nation heading toward center-left.

    2) Rmoney's current position is irrelevant. If he wins, he will be beholden to his party's platform, if only because he would be working with a Congress that has to answer to the Tea Party wing by 2014.

    As a result, it's more likely that the primary Rmoney is the REAL Rmoney and the centrist debate Rmoney that made this a close race is a masquerade.

  • The writer is either dishonest or deluded. Almost every sentence in the piece is just wrong. A single example: it’s Obama’s “economic policies that have given the U.S. its first ever downgraded credit rating.” According to the rating agency, the rating was downgraded because the Republican congress threatened not to raise the debt ceiling – which was part of the GOP’s 4-year strategy to defeat Obama by hindering the aspects of the recovery that would reach the middle class.

    And Grenell is particularly meretricious in his discussion of social issues. Not just the federal marriage amendment, the vigorous defense of DOMA, continued opposition (despite LCR’s pathetic spin to the contrary) to ENDA. And most telling of all – the failure to even mention judicial appointments. Romney did not have to “use divisive social issues” in his campaign (though he did, and Grenell just ignored those parts). Romney signed NOM’s pledge, effectively giving it a veto over his appointments to the Federal courts and assuring that if he’s elected there will be a mass influx of Scalia’s and Thomas’s to the courts that will reverse much of the progress for gay rights of the past several decades.

    • Every single point you made is true. Grenell is dishonest just like all Republicans. They wouldn’t know a fact if it was 8″ long and screwed them sore.

  • Jeanette White-Morrison

    Brilliant, articulate, honest article. Thanks for sharing.

  • tristram
    [...] if he’s elected there will be a mass influx of Scalia’s and Thomas’s to the courts that will reverse much of the progress for gay rights of the past several decades.

    [Translate]

    First, the US Congress is more than the House of Representatives, which the Democrats are unlikely to win back. It also consists of the Senate, which, likewise, the Republicans are similarly unlikely to gain control of. So the idea that any potential Romney Administration legislation would be rubber-stamped by Congress in toto, is pretty much a nightmare fantasy by Romney opponents. Majority Leader Harry Reid, the oracle who is apparently the Santa Claus of tax records (he who knows who’s paid their share and who needs to pay more), has already said “Hell no (or heck no, or whatever observant Mormon Democrats say to make a point), I won’t work with a Romney Administration.” So more than anything, expect more gridlock—no matter who wins the presidential race.

    Secondly, “Scalia’s and Thomas’s” what?? Minions? Disciples?

    I think it would be wise to look at the composition of the Federal judiciary before making sweeping generalizations. Over the last several presidential administrations, the number of vacancies vs appointments has become increasingly uneven. In some cases, this is due to the appointing administration simply not keeping up with the number of vacant seats on the bench, but also due to the lack of the US Senate in confirming those appointments. Thus, the political polarization which exists in the Legislative branch has been exported to the Judicial branch.

    Assuming a Romney Administration with a Harry Reid-controlled Senate is in place, the likely result is that even non-controversial nominees are likely to have a tough time being confirmed, and probably not quickly.

    Nice Chicken Little impression there; but another, slightly less dramatic character portrayal is in order to come into alignment with reality.

  • Great article!

  • The US credit rating downgrade was caused by Congressional Republican obstructionism. Put the blame where it is deserved and stop pandering you KAPO.

  • @RSG – we will know more very shortly. It’s just crazy to depend on a Democaratic Senate to save the country from the policies that will flow from Romney/Ryan’s underlying anti-gay theology exacerbated by their need to pay their debt to Tony Perkins, Brian Brown and the like. For starters, read Ezra Klein’s article about that idea at Wonkblog.

    Furthermore, I think that if Romney wins the presidency, there’s a 90 percent chance the GOP gets at least the 50-50 split in the Senate with Ryan as the tie breaker. Whether they are in the majority or not, there is not a single Republican senator, actual or potential, who will vote against any Romney appointee because he is too far right – and with Bork as Romney’s chief adviser on judicial appointments, they will be far right. On the other hand, the Democrats are constitutionally incapable of maintaining the kind of solidarity the R’ s have shown over the past 4 years in blocking Obama’s nominees, especially since a number of the Dems are “pro-life” and will be under enormous pressure to approve any nominee who would reverse Roe. The question is whether a Democratic Senate minority leader could hold together enough votes to sustain a filibuster.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.
Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin