8 Reasons Why I hope Americans vote for Mitt Romney







Here are some of the reasons why I hope Mitt Romney wins the USA presidential election:

1. Turnaround leader---Mitt Romney has proven track record as turnaround leader---financially turning around the scandal-ridden and mismanaged 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, USA; turning around Massachusetts economy while governor there; turning around losing corporations. I believe he could turn around the ailing USA economy with decisive and pragmatic reforms.

I believe the world now is economically in a precarious situation with financial crises in Europe and USA, a slowing China economy, a stagnant Japan economy, so we need robust reforms and hopefully a genuine recovery in the USA economy under a Romney presidency.

2. Intellectual brilliance & high intelligence---Romney is an intelligent, well-educated leader with impressive credentials.

He attended Stanford University, then earned a Bachelor of Arts in English degree with highest honors from Brigham Young University and also gave the commencement speech, then earning a joint Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration from Harvard University's Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated with top honors from both Harvard schools---cum laude in the law school and among the top-ranked graduates in the business school.

3. Strong support for small businesses, free enterprise ideals & less taxes---Romney vigorously supports the expansion of small businesses, lesser taxes and promotion of enlightened free enterprise ideals as antidotes to the ailing USA economy, instead of the ideas of increased government spending and higher taxes to stimulate the economy.

I am very wary of excessive government dole-outs and other huge wasteful USA government expenditures to prop up badly-run companies, or too much welfare policies. I am for welfare and social assistance policies, but these should be balanced with encouraging more self-reliance and self-help initiatives too.

4. Solid family values and anti-abortion stance---Romney is a good family man with solid moral values and conservative social policies.

An example: I admire Romney's courageous stand in opposing the legality of abortion on demand. I believe human life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to the unforgivable crime of murder. I am horrified at the widespread prevalence of abortions in the millions happening every year in the U.S.







5. Centrist & pragmatic ideology in politics---Mitt Romney is ideologically centrist, not overly liberal or ultra-left in political, social and economic issues. Romney is also not too rightwing, therefore he could help unify the deeply divided American politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties as he had done so as Massachusetts governor vis-a-vis the Democrats-dominated state legislature then.

USA politics is so toxic now and polarized, the fiscal cliff is also a real danger for America and threatens the stability of our world economy. We need a centrist, pragmatic and non-ideological unifying leader in the U.S. to push drastic, systemic---not cosmetic or feel-good---reforms.

The reason for this centrist nature of Mitt Romney, I believe, is because Romney has been a businessman and therefore more of a pragmatist than an ideologue politico.

Critics have unfairly hit Romney for allegedly changing some of his political stands or policy pronouncements in the past, but I view all that as proofs that Mitt Romney is above all a flexible and pragmatic leader.

As the late great China leader and daring reformist Deng Xiaoping once famously said: "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

6. Potential good friend of Asia, not adversarial because of business & pragmatic mindset---I believe Mitt Romney will be good and fair to Asia. There are many in Asia who are concerned that Romney is too anti-China in his election campaign rhetoric and TV commercials, too anti-Asian exports, or that he might curb or curtail Asian exports to America, etc. I believe Romney is a pragmatist, and he will be like the late U.S. President Richard Nixon.

Remember how Nixon was once the most stridently anti-Communist and also anti-China politician in USA Cold War era before he won power as president? After he went to the White House, it was eventually a pragmatic Nixon who boldly initiated detente with and more diplomatic exchanges with China then still under Chairman Mao Zedong of the leftist Cultural Revolution era. China now vastly different and still modernizing, a pragmatist Romney will make the U.S. an economic partner of China.

Since we in Asia has the world's fastest-growing and most dynamic economies, the pragmatic ex-businessman Mitt Romney will surely reach out to Asia and make the USA our partner for world progress.

Towards South Korea, Japan, Asean and other export-driven economies of our region, I believe Mitt Romney will boost USA ties to Asia based mainly on our economic strengths and strategic importance.


7.  Strong support for Israel & for Middle East Peace---I admire Mitt Romney for his strong support for Israel, that dynamic democracy in the Middle East.

I believe his leadership can lead to lasting peace between Jews and Palestinians as well as other Arab or Muslim peoples of the whole Middle East, because Romney is pragmatist and decisive as a leader.

8. A Successful former businessman ideal for USA's No. 1 Problem of the economy---I have nothing against lawyers becoming leaders, like Barack Obama, but the Number 1 problem of America now is the U.S. economy, so why not try a former top businessman and chief executive officer (CEO) like Mitt Romney in the White House?

This former businessman Mitt Romney knows how to handle money and financial problems more than any other leader in USA politics now. In fact, he himself has built a personal net worth of a quarter of a billion dollars or US$250 million which are now mostly in blind trusts. He has proven track record of success in handling financial and money issues, why not let this talented ex-businessman solve the myriad, systemic and complex problems of the ailing U.S. economy?

AGAIN on 3rd USA presidential debate: Romney looked presidential, Obama looked like a glib lawyer?


My Comments:
This is my second post on the third and last USA presidential debate, again with the same sentiments that yeas Obama on debate points but it was Romney who won crucial political points in wooing the public.

I just want to share this essay in Britain's Telegraph newspaper by Dr. Tim Stanley:

Tim Stanley

Dr Tim Stanley is a historian of the United States. His biography of Pat Buchanan is out now. His personal website is www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley.

 

Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile

By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: October 23rd, 2012

The third presidential debate covered foreign policy

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.


But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential.

Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

Aside from the horses and bayonets moment, this was essentially a debate without incident. Part of the fault was the format. It’s interesting to note that Romney won the first debate while standing up and Obama did better in the second when walking around. But when both men were forced to sit for 90 minutes, the energy was inevitably reduced and neither broke through the fourth wall convincingly. Romney had a slight edge because he didn’t use his hands so much: Obama blew his closing statements by developing ultra-energetic conjurer’s hands (“Look at the hands, not at the cards, look at the hands…”)

But the bigger problem was that they agreed on the essentials, which were all about foreign policy. Romney refused to tackle Obama directly on Libya (I shouted at the TV that he should, but he just wouldn’t listen) and Fast and Furious seems to have been forgotten by the GOP. In everything else, Obama has become so homicidally neoconservative and Romney so desperately peaceful that they’ve met in the middle on most issues.

Both would defend Israel in the event of an attack, both want out of Afghanistan in 2014 and neither would let Iran get the bomb. If you want a real debate on foreign policy, you’re just going to have to wait until Rand Paul gets the nomination in 2020.

At times this felt almost as boring as that Gingrich v Huntsman debate that I and about 4 other people watched during the primaries. Romney tried his darnedest to bring everything back to the economy and Obama seemed to say in every answer, “So what we need to do in the Middle East is talk more about how rubbish my opponent is.” It’s almost lucky that Obama isn’t running unopposed in this election because then he’d have nothing to run on at all.

Where a disagreement did exist was on the question of leadership; Romney wants to be proactive and Obama pledges to remain reactive. Nevertheless, both seem committed to nation building overseas – with Obama throwing in the caveat that he’d like to do some nation building at home, too. The real difference was in style.

In his closing statement – after Obama was done making the Ace of Spades disappear – Romney channelled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America. It was empty, sugary stuff that will make liberals sick. But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win.

We also have to judge this debate as part of the narrative arc of this season. Romney won the first debate by a mile. Because Romney’s win was so decisive, it sparked an image change: Americans started to think of him as presidential material.

That’s why Obama winning the second debate by an inch made little impact – people were watching Romney not to see him land punches but to see how well he could take them. He won the third debate because, by the end of the night, his and Obama’s positions in the narrative arc had switched. Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.

My Analysis on Disturbing Poll on Young Americans Worried About China and National Debt as U.S. Presidential Election Nears

President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney to Debate Foreign Policy and Security Concerns on October 22 (American time)

My Analysis

My personal comments and analysis:

It is sad to see young people of the world's still No. 1 biggest economy---the United States of America (USA)---to be so pessimistic about their country's future and also so afraid of the success of foreign emerging economies like China which they view as "a threat".

This fear of an economically rising China now is similar to past USA fears of then economically resurgent Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, remember? I believe we need not live in fear, that we should embrace the changes of our world and find opportunities in a more progressive world.

If Asian nations like China and its over 1.3 billion people are poor or suffering socio-political instability, wouldn't that explosive situation be a real threat to USA and world stability? I believe the welcome economic emancipation of the masses of China, Brazil, India, Southeast Asia and other countries augur well for world progress and help guarantee quest for global peace. 

It is my belief that a better economic future for America doesn't depend on the weakness of other countries, but on the internal domestic national reforms the leaders of America can muster the guts and vision to implement in a far-reaching manner. Do not blame others, but ourselves always.

I believe USA economic recovery and future viability depend mainly on the quality of USA education for the youth, the level of new investments in crucial research and development (R & D), the breadth and depth of innovations across the board in USA society and industries, the leaders' ability to help restore old-fashioned values like hard work and thrift for higher national savings in the U.S. (instead of too much personal and government debts at shocking levels), etc. All these real and decisive factors for a better USA economy have nothing to do with China, Brazil, Russia, India, South Korea or Southeast Asia.

I urge the youth of America and the leaders there to think differently: The world is not a zero-sum game where one can only flourish while others must suffer. Gone are the days of colonialization centuries ago when Europe, the U.S. and Japan had to have colonial subject nations for cheap or free labor and for unlimited access to natural resources and markets to sustain rapid growth of their industrializing economies while the so-called Third World nations suffer in poverty.

Despite Britain losing its position as No. 1 empire in the world, London remains a very important world financial center, Britain is still a good respected nation as evidenced by the successly hosting of the 2012 London Olympics and its record third place finish in medals.

Despite the decline of the once glorious Ottomon Empire as a world power and the loss of its colonies, modern-day Turkey is today still a good and respected nation at the forefront of economic progress in that geographical realm between Europe and the Middle East.  

The world has changed with the emancipation of nations and it is still continuously changing. Economic competition is not war. The progress of other nations shouldn't automatically mean the decline or obsolescence of others.

Let us view and build our world with courage and optimism as a win-win place, where all peoples can and should flourish together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

Here is the disturbing news below on surveyed perceptions of the worried American youth:

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - October 22, 2012) - Generation Opportunity, the largest non-profit, non-partisan organization in the United States engaging and mobilizing young Americans (ages 18-29) on the important economic issues facing the nation, released new polling data today as the 2012 American presidential election nears. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will participate in the third and final Presidential Debate October 22^nd, focusing on foreign policy and national security issues.

"Young American adults are very concerned about the United States' ability to maintain its role as a global leader in the future if it continues on the same path as the last several years. They believe certain policies advocated in Washington, D.C. have weakened America's national security, especially policies that increase the national debt, decrease American energy production, expand American reliance on foreign energy sources, and escalate America's indebtedness to foreign powers.

They view China as both an economic and military threat to the United States, and they closely watch China's economic policies, military buildup, space exploration, and restrictions on Internet and speech freedoms," said Paul T. Conway, President of Generation Opportunity and former Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Labor under Secretary Elaine L. Chao.

"Young Americans refuse to settle for an American future defined by chronic joblessness, increased national debt, and a diminished role on the world stage. They believe President Obama should lower taxes and regulations on American businesses so that they compete effectively and to avoid American jobs from going overseas to countries like China. They overwhelmingly agree that current policies are taking us backward, not forward, and plan to make their voices heard in the upcoming presidential election."

Since its launch in June of 2011, Generation Opportunity has amassed a following of over four million people on Facebook and is actively organizing young adults across America through grassroots tactics, voter registration, and voter turnout efforts.

Conway also served as an agency Chief of Staff at the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and as the Chief of Staff of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency responsible for the American civil service. While at OPM, Conway was involved in the legislative efforts to establish the Department of Homeland Security. He is a past participant in the Senior Executives in National and International Security program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

For Generation Opportunity, the polling company, inc./WomanTrend conducted a nationwide online survey of 1,003 American adults ages 18-29 between July 27 and July 31, 2012.

Randomly selected online opt-in panel participants were sent an invitation to the survey via email which included a secure link to the online questionnaire.

Quotas were used to ensure the survey was representative of the larger 18-29 year old nationwide population with regard to race, region, and gender. The data were NOT weighted.

The overall sampling margin of error for the survey is +/-3.1% at a 95% confidence interval, meaning that the data obtained would not differ more than 3.1 percentage points in 95 out of 100 similar samples obtained.

YOUNG AMERICANS ON AMERICAN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP AND CURRENT DIRECTION

         55% of young Americans are not confident that America will still be a global leader in five years if the USA continues along the same path as the last few years.

         Only 36% of young Americans agree with the statement "generally speaking, things in the United States are heading in the right direction."

YOUNG AMERICANS ON TOP AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND ENERGY ISSUES

         When asked to rank the greatest threats to the national security of the United States, young Americans listed the following reasons: (Randomized List) (Accepted Multiple Responses)

   59% - The national debt;

   46% - Energy dependence;

   43% - Indebtedness to foreign nations;

   40% - Terrorism;

   33% - Nuclear capable nations like Iran;

   3% - Other;

   7% - Do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).

         62% of young Americans would increase production of domestic American energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal if given the opportunity to set America's fiscal priorities.

YOUNG AMERICANS ON CHINA AS A COMPETITOR AND THREAT

         71% of young Americans are concerned that so many American jobs are going to foreign competitors like China.

         72% of young Americans agree that with more and more companies leaving the USA in favor of locating their business in places like China and even Canada, President Obama should lower the taxes on American businesses to restore and expand jobs in America.

         When asked why they thought American jobs are going to foreign competitors like China, young Americans indicated the following reasons: (Randomized List) (Accepted Multiple Responses)

   69% - Cheaper wages overseas;

   41% - High taxes on businesses in the U.S.;

   30% - Too much regulation on businesses in the U.S.;

   28% - Lack of opportunities to start and grow businesses in the U.S.;

   2% - I do not think U.S. jobs are going overseas;

   6% - Do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).

         76% of Millennials view China as a danger: 48% as an economic threat and 28% as both an economic and military threat (the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, April 16 - 22, 2011, +/- 4 percent margin of error).

ABOUT GENERATION OPPORTUNITY

Generation Opportunity is an American non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to engage everyone from young adults, to early career professionals, college students, young mothers and fathers, construction workers, current service men and women, veterans, entrepreneurs, and all Americans who find themselves dissatisfied with the status quo and willing to create a better tomorrow.

Generation Opportunity operates on a strategy that combines advanced social media tactics with proven field tactics to reach Americans 18-29.

The organization's social media platforms -- "Being American by GO," "The Constitution by GO," "Gas Prices Are Too Damn High," "Lower Taxes by GO," "Keep Texas Awesome," "Jersey Proud," and "We Like Small Government" on Facebook -- have amassed a total fan base of more than 4 million.

I admire Barack Obama on foreign policy and Mitt Romney for his economic leadership




Strong on economic issues

It is my belief that successful businessman and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the leadership capabilities to more decisively turn around the still ailing United States of America (USA) economy like the way he did for the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, for Massachusetts and for various business firms, etc.

Solid on social Issues

On social issues, I also share Romney's conservative stand opposing abortion, that it is tantamount to murder because human life begins at conception.

Weak Foreign Policy except on Israel?

However, Romney's foreign policy credentials are yet untested, his election campaign rhetoric is so hysterical in anti-China demagoguery and even anti-Russia outburts. During his overseas trip to Britain in time for the 2012 London Olympics, Romney drew angry British criticisms for his tactless public comments about the preparations for the international sports event.

Instead of promoting peace and global dimilitarization, Romney also pledges to increase military spending when the U.S. is now already way ahead as the world's largest military spender and exporter of arms.

I share Romney's strong unequivocal support for the state of Israel and its survival as a dynamic democracy.



More civilized and humane foreign policy, except for questions on his support for Israel

It is my belief that incumbent U.S. President Barack Obama has a more refine and humane foreign policy, in general, thus he has proven to be a capable leader in diplomacy who is quite well-liked by many nations. Even in national security, Obama has surprisingly done well and has not been a weakling in fighting international terrorism threats.

But it is distressing to read reports claiming that Obama has supposedly not done much to support the besieged state of Israel, is this true?

Weak and indecisive on needed economic reforms to revive USA?

However, I believe Obama has shown weakness and lack of strong leadership when it comes to the important challenge of turning around the crisis-hit U.S. economy.

Huge unemployment numbers, declining per capita income of many American families, weak industrial foundations, anemic exports, still record-high government budget deficit, massive foreign debts, and other problems remain quite formidable.

Is the U.S. economy---like its balooning budget deficit and foreign debnts---teetering towards the precipice?

What issues and factors shall eventually influence American voters?

How will the American voters choose the next President of the United States this November 2012?

What are your opinions? What do you consider are the most important issues facing the U.S. now?