Mitt, We Hardly Know You

I won’t say the election will be settled by Wednesday morning.  Given how close the presidential race is, the record number of absentee ballots cast, the continuing attempts to disenfranchise American voters who can’t be trusted to vote GOP (Ohio is the latest dismal example), and the overall enmity and division created by this campaign, this country will be dealing with the repercussions of campaign 2012 for some time.  What I can promise is this will be my final attempt to sway readers’ votes.

First, I make my short case for Obama.  His $850 billion stimulus plan is hardly money thrown down a rat hole that his opponents claim.  The stimulus would have been more effective had it been larger, but Obama, recognizing that politics is the art of the possible or playing like a smart quarterback, took what Congress would give him, saving an estimated 2 million jobs.  The Affordable Care Act is an important step in reforming how this country provides health care for all of its citizens, not just those who can afford insurance or are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.  The United Auto Workers made concessions to help save GM and Chrysler from liquidation, which saved yet more jobs.  Both companies are back on the road to being competitive in the domestic market.  Finally, by ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” pledging his support of same-sex marriage, defending employees’ right to have contraceptives covered by their health insurance, and defending abortion rights, Obama is on the right side of history for civil rights.

Romney has not convinced me he deserves a shot.  Yes, I dislike GOP politics in general: that party is on the wrong side of the two most important civil rights struggles of our day, LGBT rights (protecting LGBT people by law from discrimination and providing equality under the law by allowing gays and lesbians civil marriage rights), and women’s reproductive rights (access to contraceptives and abortion).  Most disturbing has been the GOP’s campaign to subvert two party governance with its unprecedented obstruction of every initiative offered by Obama (see the Paul Krugman piece linked below) and its embrace of the radical TEA-faction elements who have questioned Obama’s citizenship and even paternity.

What do we know about Mitt Romney?  John McCain’s campaign (link below) produced a 200-page opposition report on Romney which explains why McCain thought Sarah Palin was better suited as a vice-presidential nominee.  However, that opposition report also leaves the key question of the race (“What does Romney stand for”) in limbo.  Romney remains a cipher, a chameleon, a man who can be read any number of ways, and who changes color to suit his audience and environment.

Romney’s economic record as governor was poor.  During his governorship, from January 2003 to December 2006, Massachusetts added a net 31,000 new jobs, an increase of under 1%.  During that same period, the US added roughly 5.3% new jobs: hence, the claim that Massachusetts lagged behind the rest of the country in job growth.  Massachusetts job growth is especially anemic when compared to how the state did under Democrat governor Michael Dukakis, when jobs grew by 16%.

Worse, the state’s high-technology sector under Romney suffered from the emigration of skilled workers: from 2003-2005, Massachusetts lost some 120,000 jobs and 233,000 residents.  The McCain paper cites a report issued in December 2006, “Workforce Needs Still a Challenge for Innovation Sector,” by Jim O’Sullivan, that Massachusetts was losing ground as a technology leader to other states, in part because venture capital firms (like Bain?) were refusing to fund risky startups, and Massachusetts was not competitive with other states.  In his study which appeared in the December 6, 2006 Boston Globe, “Report Calls Mass New Jobs Laggard,” Robert Weisman claimed that emigration of workers skilled in technology left Massachusetts in a poor position to capitalize on growth in the technology sector.  So much for the performance of the “CEO Governor.”

Romney’s tax and fiscal record was also poor.  When he left office in December 2006, he left his successor an over $1 billion budget deficit.  Massachusetts state spending increased by some $5 billion during Romney’s governorship: an average growth rate of 8%.  In an effort to reduce taxes and cover his spending, Romney increased state fees by an average of $700 million per year as governor: examples of such fees include costs of renewing a driver’s license, filing a court case, getting a marriage license, or selling a house.  And, the McCain campaign report claimed that, under Romney, Massachusetts had one of the worst corporate tax climates in the country.

If Romney’s economic and fiscal performances were poor, his record on civil rights issues is far worse.  Beyond his laughable claim to be “severely conservative,” Romney has shown no consistency on civil rights issues like LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and women’s reproductive rights.  Which Romney are we being asked to elect?  The man who (see clip below) repudiates even his own church’s stance (which strenuously opposes Mormons getting abortions, but does not impose that stance on non-Mormons) by declaring he would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s health?

Are we getting the Romney who said he supports same-sex marriage, or the Romney who reduced a lesbian mother to tears by calling her natural daughter her adopted daughter, and told a gay New Hampshire Vietnam vet who had just married his long-time partner that he opposed same-sex marriage?  Are we getting the Romney which represents a party which would only allow abortion in cases of “forcible” rape, and which contains members who see a rape pregnancy as a gift from Jahweh?  Will we possibly elect a Romney who will allow private employers, as an expression of “freedom,” to deny their employees contraceptive coverage in their health insurance?

I make no pretense of ever being open to Romney as a candidate: his past record and the performance of his party during the last four years led me to make up my mind long ago.  For those who are still considering their presidential choice, I make two assertions.  One, Obama deserves re-election, based on a solid record in difficult economic times in the face of determined opposition.  Two, Mitt Romney’s record is dubious at best, and this country is heading down a perilous path if it chooses to reward what Krugman described as a political protection racket.

Vote as if your freedom and the future of freedom in this country depends on your one vote.  Then, organize and agitate, regardless of who wins.

Paul Krugman's "GOP extortion racket" piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/krugman-the-blackmail-caucus.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121102&_r=0

2008 McCain opposition research report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/john-mccains-200-page-romney-research-book_n_1211965.html

Romney losing his temper, renouncing abortion rights: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/02/romney-has-temper-tantrum-admits-anti-choice-positions-video/