2012 Voting Booth Vol. I

And so it has begun. And, as with every election: JMO does the research, so you don't have to! (but feel free to check my facts. Good research always stands up to scrutiny.)

With Santorum finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel (which was the on-coming Romney train) and derailing his own campaign before Mitt, and the GOP voters, could do it for him - we finally have a two person race. (Of course, a two candidate system creates its own issues, but those are for another day.)

The day after Santorum conceded to Romney I saw this image spring up on Facebook:

I restrained myself from commenting on this image on Facebook for a few reasons:

1) It was posted by people who were too young to vote and I didn't feel like taking any action that would make them feel bad about being interested in politics. They are young and misguided, but good for them for being interested.

2) I've found that people don't really pay attention to comments in Facebook. They are typically quippy, brief, and either ignored or misconstrued. This is a much better venue for my thoughts.

3) I had much to say and didn't want to bog down the comments section of the image. But, with as much as I need to say, let's get to it. I'll be refuting each point one at a time (This went longer than anticipated. You'll find the most amazing aspect of this entire situation after each point):

Point 1:
He'd repeal Obamacare and take away health care for millions:
Obamacare doesn't take effect until 2014, so he can't exactly away something they don't have. Obamacare hasn't even survived the Supreme Court test, so Romney may not have to repeal it, the courts may do that for him. I find it interesting that the creators of this document feel the need to specify why this is a bad thing. They couldn't just put "He'd repeal Obamacare." They had to add "and take away health care for millions." Why is that? Is it because the majority of national polls show that American's don't want it?! That if the average American reads "He'd repeal Obamacare" their first thought is: "good?" (Even the pollsters who are in bed with the left can't muster more than a 47% approval rating for this bill. Out of 298 polls only 92% had Americans opposing this bill by an average margin of over 11 points! Even if every "undecided" person polled were lumped into the "in favor" camp that would still leave fewer than half of those polled in favor of this bill. Not only that, but 57% of the polls would still show that Americans don't want this bill. Source

Point 2:
He opposes the President's plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave troops there indefinitely:
Romney has taken only one stance on Afghanistan: The top military leaders involved in the conflict should be the ones making the decision. So if Romney's plan is in opposition to the President's plan, that would mean that the President's plan is in opposition to the military's plan. Last I checked, President Obama didn't have any military experience. I suppose that "indefinitely" is accurate if there isn't a scheduled withdrawal date, so that much could be true. Romney has also stated that he would caution against making a similar commitment in the future, as we have in Afghanistan.

Point 3:
He'd cut taxes for millionaires, paid for by cutting the programs that middle-class families rely on:
Once again, as in point one, this is a distortion of the truth based on planned future events. Romney would "cut taxes for millionaires" by continuing the Bush-era tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone who pays them, so, yes, that includes millionaires. Romney also wants to cut taxes for businesses to stimulate job growth and revive the economy. How will he off-set the loss of income for the Federal Government? By cutting services. What puzzles me is this: How many families making between $32,000 and $36,000 a year (the low end of the "middle class" depending on your source) rely on government programs? Now, I understand that there are those that earn less than those figures that do rely on government programs, but... the middle class? I don't think so. Additionally, Romney would return the responsibilities for these services where they belong: to the state governments. Perhaps if we weren't seeing 20% of our income go to the Federal government we wouldn't be as up in arms if we see our property taxes go up a little. (Side note: The average American is working for the government until April 17th, this year before they begin to work for themselves.)

Point 4:
He'd end Medicare as we know it:
I'm not going to lie: I laughed out loud when I read this one. On the one hand, it is completely and utterly true: Mitt Romney would end Medicare as we know it. Sounds like he'd completely do away with it, doesn't it? That a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to condemn Medicare. Clever wording, no? Of course, what is actually behind this sound-byte is that Romney will suggest reforms to Medicare that we haven't tried yet so, yes: Medicare would no longer be "as we know it." Romney has stated that he desires to "ensure that both Medicare and Social Security are made sustainable for future generations." Seriously, laughed out loud.

Point 5:
He'd get rid of Planned Parenthood and outlaw abortion:
Once again, this point is based on very clever wording and fuzzy deduction (Similar to when then-senator Obama said that he would not "repudiate" Rev Wright). Romney would not look to (nor would he be legally able to) "get rid of Planned Parenthood." Romney would remove Planned Parenthood's Federal funding. Now, if that action results in the dissolution of Planned Parenthood, then I'd have to believe that most American's wouldn't want their tax money subsidizing abortion to begin with. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood, like other private prenatal charities would be able to raise their own support. Oh, and no President can simply "outlaw abortion" or Regan, Bush I, or Bush II would have done it long before Romney got an opportunity.

Most amazing aspect of this situation:
This image originated from President Obama's Campaign Facebook Page!
What does this mean? Well, this wasn't some grass-roots effort to bolster support for President Obama. This came directly from his re-election campaign! Why is this a such a big revelation? It means they recognize that the President has done so little for them to rest their laurels on that they are forced to resort to fear tactics. And not only fear tactics, but deceptive fear tactics at that! [if you skipped the refutation of the points, just check out points 2, 4, and 5. (well, every point has some deception to it but those are the most egregious)].

Bottom line: The Obama campaign is resorting to (at the very least) misleading fear tactics, and not all of them are so terrible!