Through my eyes: What a way to run a country
As I write this column, you have a big advantage over me, because the presidential election has not yet taken place, but as you read it, the election is over and you know who won. So you must bear with me as we look at the possibilities together.
Remember how you and I were astonished some time ago when the "ObamaCare" bill was introduced and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made the dumbest statement in the history of government when she said, "Let's get this bill passed quickly, so we can read it and see what's in it!" Hard to believe that can be topped, but I believe Senator Harry Reid may have done worse when he made the following pronouncement and I paraphrase - if Mitt Romney is elected, there will not be one single Democratic senator that will work with him. He will not get anything passed. To think that his policies will get through the Senate is laughable.
Now I ask you, is that any way to run a country? To think that we send these self-absorbed, professional politicians to Washington, and they have such a myopic view of what it takes to do the job we sent them there to do, is truly what is laughable. Reid's, and every other member of the Senate and House of Representatives, career goal should be to do what is best for the United States of America, not some partisan tunnel vision only aimed at getting elected by pleasing the "party line!" If Reid was in the military, the attitude that he displayed with that statement would be a court marshal offense, and rightly so. Be honest with me now - do you not want your Congress to do what is right and best for our nation, do you give a rip as to which side of the aisle he or she is on? I think I know your answer to that.
Remember now, I do not know who won the election, but, in my own assessment, leading up to the vote is that, after watching the debates and listening intently, I think Romney won every debate. Romney presented a plan for our country, while Obama did not. It was a little bit like what lawyers do in the courtroom. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if they are not, attack your opponent. The facts are clearly not on Obama's side (outrageous deficit spending, unemployment, a less than sincere attitude toward what has made our country great, "one nation under God"). so he spent his time attacking Romney personally. Of course, Romney argued the facts but backing them up with a proposed workable plan, especially for our oil and gas resources that would allow us to end our dependence on the Middle East for energy. I thought one statement made by Romney in the foreign policy debate pretty much summed up the approach by these two men. Amid an attack on Romney by the president, Romney said, "Attacking me will not give you a successful foreign policy."
To our benefit, the choice is clear between these two men. In my humble opinion, which of course is no better than anyone else's, Obama is leading our nation, at best, into socialism, and that is a slippery slope into a government that will dictate to you and me, in every area of our lives.
I hope you voted, and as I said before, the choice is clear.