I'm Not Voting for Mitt Romney Because He's Mormon

That's right. I'm not voting for Mitt Romney because he's Mormon.

I've been going through an edit for my latest book and I think I should punctuate that sentence like this: I'm not voting for Mitt Romney, because he's Mormon. But that feels like it gives my intention a different meaning.

What I mean is that I'm not voting for him just because he's Mormon. I'm voting for him, because I think he is the best man for the job. Period.

He most closely represents my values and what I believe needs to be fixed in this economy. He's said his emphasis will be on jobs. He plans to create jobs through stimulating small business growth. I think that's key. I don't want more government jobs created, I want to see small businesses thrive and grow and hire more workers. I want to see the public sector shrink and the private sector grow.

I also think he understands that we can't spend out way out of debt and we have to rein in the out-of-control spending. I can't have something just because I want it. I have to be able to pay for it and if I write a check that has no money to back it, I go to jail. Why is our government exempt from this? Why do we keep borrowing money from China? At this rate, China will never have to invade us, they'll own us outright.

I don't like Obamacare. I don't think the government should be running, or even be involved in, our healthcare. In my experience, anything run by the government is inefficient and costly. Have you ever had to ask the IRS a question, or worse, deal with the IRS on an issue? It's a nightmare. And everyone has a different answer. The IRS is a perfect example of the government's inability to run an efficient organization. And we want to let it run our healthcare? Make decisions about our health? No thanks. Obamacare will run us into even more debt--how much is a trillion anyway?

Welfare and unemployment are other examples of inefficient and costly programs. I have an extended family member who took advantage of welfare for years. Perfectly healthy and able-bodied, but lived off welfare and spent the money on drugs. As did all of his friends. And unemployment? I know a young man who lost his job then collected unemployment so he could stay home and play video games. He took advantage of the system. these are not isolated cases, either.

I agree that people sometimes need help. But the way the government does it is wrong. If someone needs money to pay bills, let them work in exchange for that help. And make that help temporary, not a way of life. Give people a hand up, not a handout. I love the saying, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." We need to teach people to fish!

And, here's something that irks me. I see people accuse republicans of being greedy and having no compassion. That blanket statement is wrong. First of all, anyone can be greedy, and greed isn't limited to money. People can be just as greedy with their time. I think there's greed in both parties. I also believe there's compassion in both parties. Some of the most compassionate people I know, are also conservative republicans. People who consistently donate time and money to help others. People who throw together a dinner at a moment's notice or donate clothing to a needy family or share garden vegetable or who will just sit and spend time with someone who needs it.

Mitt Romney has been accused of being greedy, of only being interested in making money. And yet he's donated millions and millions of dollars to charity, not to mention the time he's spent over his lifetime serving others. I'd venture to say that Mitt Romney had donated more money than many, if not most, president and even celebrities (people whose monthly earning are more than most people's yearly earnings). I don't think he can be accused of being greedy or not being compassionate.

I also like that he can work with opposing viewpoints. He understands how to balance a budget, how to run a successful business (you can't spend your way out of debt), and he embraces the Constitution.

So, yes, I'm not voting for Mitt Romney because he's Mormon, I'm voting for him because he is the best man for the job.

Mitt Romney? No, thanks.

The other night the phone rang and my husband answered it on the speaker phone (because our handsets are always missing). It was a political call. (I sure wish I could be on a "Do Not Call" registry for political calls because they are so annoying). The man on the phone wanted to know if we'd like to donate $75 to Mitt Romney's campaign. My husband politely said no and the caller insisted we donate something else. My husband still said no. The caller wanted to know why we wouldn't donate. My husband replied that we don't support Romney. The caller went on to argue with my husband insisting that Romney is the only candidate.

Really? What did he hope to gain? Did he think we'd change our minds if he got all argumentative?

My husband told the caller that he didn't like Romney's voting record and that he did not represent us especially when it comes to abortion. The caller said that Romney is against abortion but wants to leave it up to the states to determine their own laws about abortion.

If that isn't the least courageous way to face a highly emotional issue, I don't know what is. What a pansy position to take. Abortion is a hot issue for me because I believe every child has a right to life. Nine out of ten women would've chosen to end my son's life simply because he has an extra chromosome. I believe abortion takes the life of an innocent child. Romney obviously doesn't feel that way or else he's trying to pander to both sides of this issue. Either way, color me unimpressed.

I also do not favor socialized medicine. I believe it will destroy our medical care system. I do believe we have problems with our current health care system and that we need to solve the problems, but I don't want to turn over my health care, nor that of my family's, to the government. I have never seen the government run a program efficiently and I certainly don't want my health or my family's health to be dependent on politicians. Romney instituted socialized medicine in Massachusetts. He doesn't have a problem with the government running health care. He and I sharply disagree on this and I can't support someone who believes that the government is better at determining who should receive health care than a doctor or the patient.

Romney is not the candidate I want to represent me. And that's disappointing. I thought he would be. I favored him in the last primaries but as I've learned more about his voting record and his stand on issues that are important to me, I've realized he is not the candidate for me. If he is the republican candidate I will have to abstain from voting in the 2012 presidential election.

And if anyone knows how to stop those annoying political calls, please tell me.

Video from Iraqi War Vet

This video brought tears to my eyes, especially the ending. It wasn't funded by McCain. It's powerful.

What You See is What You Get

Two of my daughters have expressed an interest in joining the Debate Team at our high school. The older of the two has already taken a debate class and the younger one is now enrolled in that class. Today they will meet with the teacher that sponsors the team and will decide if they want to pursue joining.

This has brought up some interesting subjects as my younger daughter has been relating the subjects that students are interested in debating. Some of those subjects include the shortened lunch hour, the open campus policy, and other school related issues. General subjects have included abortion, same-sex marriage, the war in Iraq, and current Presidential candidates.

Last night my daughter and I discussed Mitt Romney. She commented that people won't vote for him simply based on his religion. People claim that his religion will influence his decisions and that his private life will most defintely affect his ability to effectively serve in our country's highest office. I find this position so interesting because 8-10 years ago, these same people vehemently defended the then current president's right to do whatever he wanted in his private life (even when it included immoral activities in the Oval Office) and claimed that his private life had absolutely nothing to do with his public life or his ability to stand as head of our country. Hmmm. Interesting how people will flip-flop depending on how it suits them.

Does someone's private acts affect his/her public acts? Should we, as voters, be concerned with what a candidate does in his/her private time? I must answer: Absolutely. What we do in private, especially when we think no one is watching, shows who we are at our very core. Someone who conducts himself or herself differently in private than in public, is not an honest person and does not have integrity. Only when our behavior is consistent, privately and publicly, can we be considered to have integrity.

I do not want my elected officials to be one kind of person in private and a different kind of person in public. I much prefer people who are "what you see is what you get" kind of people, even if I disagree with them, because I know they are consistent and I know what to expect.

I remember girls in high school who would act like they were your best friend to your face and as soon as you turned your back, they'd shred you to bits. I much prefer people to be honest and upfront. I can agree to disagree, but it's difficult to know where I stand with someone who isn't honestly portraying himself/herself.

Wouldn't it be nice if all of our candidates for the upcoming Presidential election would just be honest? We could vote for who we feel best represents our views and know that "what we see is what we'll get."