PULL QUOTE: ‘It is, indeed, a historical and overwhelming moment for me to outline Obama’s vision for America in his own words, thus: “I believe America’s prosperity was built on the strength of our middle class. We don’t succeed when a few at the top do well while everyone else struggles to get by — we’re better off when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules” (CNN). This is what governments should do, removing inequalities in all spheres of policy making; and governments’ focus should be a lot more on the poor and the vulnerable’
ON HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the host made it clear that if Obama wins, America wins, and if Mitt Romney wins, comedy wins. If comedy wins, apart from the occasional comic relief that it would bring, America would see a ‘Romneyian’ President. A Romneyian President is a ‘no-nothing’ President with no settled position on any major policy matter. Throughout the Republican primaries and in his chase to the finishing line, Republican Presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney remains fully committed to standing for nothing. To have such unwavering commitment requires a change of heart on almost everything that matters to the American people. How can we show that Romney stands for nothing? I will present his no-nothing positions on four issues – health plan; disaster relief; regulation of the market; and tax cuts for the rich.
Here are Romney’s flip-flops on health insurance (Sam Wilkes, Huffington Post, 11/3/2012). In 2006, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts signed a health care law that mandated every resident in the State to have health insurance. Later in 2009, President Barack Obama used the same Massachusetts health insurance model for his own Obamacare. In a Republican Presidential debate in 2008, Romney claimed that he was in favour of a national use of the Massachusetts health plan. Then Romney at a recent town hall meeting in Ohio indicated that his health plan was only for States and not for the national level. In an Op-ed piece in USA Today in 2009, Romney talked about using the health plan nationally; then in a twist in an interview with Megyn Kelly, he claimed that his Massachusetts health plan should not go national; contradictions galore!

Additionally, Romney has said that one of his first acts as President would be to repeal Obamacare. This is surprising when you consider that both Obamacare and Romney’s Massachusetts health plan are similar. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber designed the Romney Massachusetts health plan and said that that plan and Obamacare are not different.
Here are Romney’s contradictions on disaster relief (The New York Times, 11/1/2012). Romney has had different positions on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). At a Republican primary debate in June 2011, CNN’s John King asked Romney for his opinion on disaster relief. Romney responded that the federal government should have less involvement with disaster relief, and that the private sector should deal with disasters. Only last Wednesday after Hurricane Sandy showed up in all its glory in northeast USA, Romney said as President, he would make certain that FEMA has all the funds it requires to accomplish its mission. Romney did not say from where he would secure additional funds to boost FEMA. Additionally, Romney runs on a presidential ticket that favours cutting the federal budget on everything except military spending; but FEMA is now conveniently not part of his budget-cutting agenda. Contradictions galore!
Here is Romney on regulation and tax cuts for the rich (Wapshott, Reuters, 10/4/2012). Romney’s personal manifesto, No Apology, makes the case for a deregulated market. However, in the first Presidential Debate with Obama in Denver, Romney said, “Regulation is essential…You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation … Every free economy has good regulation.”; contradictions galore! In the Republican primary debate in Boca Raton in 2008, Romney spoke about retaining the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In his first debate with President Obama in Denver, Romney declared that he could not now decrease the tax burden of the rich; contradictions galore!

On CNN, Obama outlined his vision for America through spelling out some of his accomplishments, thus: Obama entered the presidential office in 2009 facing the challenges of two wars and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1929-1935; Obama ended the Iraq War; since 2010, American employers created about 5.5 million jobs, bringing; house prices and 401 (k)s are increasing;  the U.S. has less dependence on foreign oil compared to any period over the last two decades; and there is revival of the auto industry.
It is, indeed, an historical and overwhelming moment for me to outline Obama’s vision for America in his own words, thus: “I believe America’s prosperity was built on the strength of our middle class. We don’t succeed when a few at the top do well while everyone else struggles to get by — we’re better off when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules” (CNN). This is what governments should do, removing inequalities in all spheres of policy-making; and governments’ focus should be a lot more on the poor and the vulnerable.
Come Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the U.S. will elect its 45th President. U.S. Census Bureau places America’s registered voters at 146,311,000. People also will vote to elect 468 candidates in the U.S. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). As things stand right now, Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate; Republicans control the House of Representatives. Since the midterm election in 2010, Democratic President Obama has had to function with a minority government.
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012, if people want a comedy of contradictions in American policy, then they should vote for Romney. If people want America to win, then they must vote for Obama.