Somehow John Hawkins (a self-styled “professional blogger”) got his article published at Townhall.com, giving independent voters five good reasons why they should vote for Romney over Obama. They are ridiculous.
- Mitt is from a blue state and understands how to work with the other party.Hawkins said that Romney was able to “pass legislation and balance the budget” in Massachusetts by working with a legislature that “was 87% Democrats.” But Obama and the Republicans haven’t been able to, and that’s a bad thing, according to Hawkins. This is called gridlock. I call it political salvation from more mischief that would result from said “cooperation.” And I thank the Founders for creating a system that put checks on unlimited government that would otherwise result from such “cooperation.”
- Mitt Romney is a moderate Republican.Here Hawkins is just plain incoherent. He created a blog called Notmittromney.com during the primaries, alleging that Romney would be a moderate, which was going to be a bad thing. In fact, Hawkins said “the biggest reason some of us fought so hard to stop Mitt Romney was that we feared he would be just as much of a moderate in the White House as he was as the governor of Massachusetts.” But, today “that’s probably exactly the kind of feature you’re looking for in a President.” Right.
- He’d be one of the most decent men ever to sit in the Oval Office.Hawkins then reviews a few of Romney’s acts of charity – there are many, as he is a decent and giving man – as if to say that somehow this qualifies him to be president. I remember George Washington’s warning: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire it is both a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Hawkins’ suggestion that independents should vote for Romney because he’s decent is the same argument that nuns should run the guillotine. They’re so decent.
- Who better to get the economy going than a successful businessman?This is incredible. Just what can any president do to “get the economy going” again? Name one thing he can do. I can’t think of a single one. He can’t arbitrarily unilaterally eliminate the minimum wage (which, by the way, would bring millions into the workforce from the very first day). He can propose it, of course, but Congress writes (or unwrites) the laws, not the President. Does not Hawkins get that? I’m glad Romney was a successful businessman. I’m glad he saved the Olympics. The federal government is not a business nor a charity. It’s function is simple: enforce the laws and stay out of the way. Period. Romney the successful businessman will have no positive impact on the economy. None whatsoever. Hawkins is a fool.
- What message does it send if you reward failure?
Hawkins trots out all the “failures” of the Obama administration and asks: “Can the country really afford to have another four years just as bad as the last four years?” Probably not, but what’s the guarantee that the new guy will be any better than the old guy? And just who determines that Obama’s “failures” were failures. In his socialist worldview, bringing down America economically is part of the plan. In that view, Obama has been a success. Where’s the evidence that Romney will do anything differently?