My Fellow Americans: Who would vote for Mitt Romney?

Someone needs to explain to me why anyone would vote for Mitt Romney. He's flip-flopped more than 40 John Kerrys, but apparently flip-flopping is only an issue when a Democrat does it. Like passing Mitt Romney's insurance plan for Massachusetts at the national level. Or supporting a carbon shares market like Bob Dole proposed in the 1990s.

Is there anyone left who cannot see the hypocrisy of today's Republican party?

Of course, it is hard to call out politicians as their rhetoric tends to start at hyperbolic and dance at, if not over, the line of truth. Sins of omission fueling political spin. There would be a lot less mud flung if only those without such sins could fling it.

Or what if we removed certain types of mud? A lot of mud flying around is about compromising, which is what a politicians job is--working together with others to find a solution that everyone can live with. This should not be on a list of moral defects for those running to represent us in political office, but lauded as a virtue which without our great civilization might not survive.

I'm trying to write without name calling or adjectives of value, as that is exactly the rhetoric I want to see less of in our country. It would be easy to equate those who see compromise as weakness and put partisanship before country with extremists like those in the Taliban, but that is an emotionally charged and mostly useless comparison. But how can we not condemn politicans who sign pledges not to raise taxes when one of the responsibilites of our elected officials is to ensure the government has the money it needs to pay for the services it provides for signing away that duty and harming our governments ability to do the job we ask it to do?

Part of what makes our country great is its diversity. While the words under the Statue of Liberty ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free") may not be the position of all Americans, it does reflect the reality of our past and our present. Very few citizens had relatives living within our current borders before 1492. Or even 1776. But there has always been conflict between groups when it comes to everyone getting their share of the American dream. Diversity requires compromise and dialog.

Dialog is something it seems we've forgotten how to engage in. I may not agree with what you say and yet while I will defend your right to say it, I would appreciate it your saying it without name calling, adjectives of value, self-righteous certitude, contempt (veiled or outright), or other emotionally-charged language. We don't have to have the same world view, but as fellow Americans, we should be able to be civil to one another and respectful of our differences.

I am angry about the rhetorical staples that imply (if not outright state) that if you do not agree with X you do not love your country, you do not have quality morals, you are not intelligent, and/or your opinion does not matter. What on Earth does one have to do with the other? And why is it so important that we all agree?

I am tired of the outrage I feel when lies are passed around as truth until people believe them or when a sin condemned so fervently when one side was guilty now isn't even noted when the other side is guilty.

I have been thinking a lot about how a person's belief system shapes their world view and even how they view others. Too much of what people believe today (if not always) is based on fear. And when fear dominates, compassion can slip from our interactions with others. But we need to see each other as part of a whole, whether we believe that all of us are God's children, or Gods' children, or children of the stars, or simply fellow homo sapiens sapiens. If nothing else, we are all citizens of the United States of America, which was founded on a belief that its citizens have the right to their own beliefs.

So, my fellow Americans, please stop saying that what 45+% of the country wants policy-wise is "not what Americans want". Stop pretending that some out-of-touch fiend has passed the legislation of the past four years. Stop pretending that a Republican in the White House the last four years would have done any better than Obama has (have you looked around the world? It's not just our economy!). Stop saying that our country needs to be "taken back". Taken back from what? Our country is here, in the hands of people who don't agree with you but who love our country, have sound morals, are intelligent, and whose opinions matter as much as yours do.

I grew up hearing about "tax and spend" liberals, but the W years seem to have given us the "don't tax but spend" conservatives, who cook the books by not including the cost of two wars in their finances. Where were the suddenly devoted to low deficits and a balanced budget folks back then? Why was nothing said when W burned through the surplus Clinton had left? Even Reagan knew there were times you needed to raise taxes (as he did 11 times in his 8 years in office). Is anyone claiming the Reagan years were bad for business?

But then no one but conservative politicians are claiming that taxes and job creation are linked. Think about it. If they were, wouldn't there have been a lot of job creation under W and his tax cuts? But instead it was much lower than Clinton's 8 years in office. I'd like to see any evidence that tax rates like those under Clinton adversely effected the so-called "job creators" as well as an explanation as to why the Bush tax cuts did not create as many jobs as when taxes were higher.

Back to my initial question: Why would anyone vote for Mitt Romney?

His financial plan, as least what he has actually given any detail about (which I hope we can all agree is very little) is proven not to work. He has made a claim that he will create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years. This is conveniently the number already projected by those who forecast such things (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/26/163719000/economists-romneys-12-million-jobs-target-realistic-even-if-he-loses). Yes, Mitt can do nothing and keep that promise whether he or Obama is in the White House.

He has abandoned many of his far-right stances from the primary, and pretty much agreed with everything Obama was saying on foreign policy during the last debate.

He says the government should be run like a business but seems opposed to the conventional wisdom that you need to spend money to make money. Or that you often take borrow money to accomplish what you need to do in the short-term (leveraged buyouts, anyone?).

His numbers do not add up in the few instances he actually has put any numbers out there (with exceptions like the 12 million jobs that will be created regardless).

In the debates, he kept saying, "I know how to do that," but never elaborated. Ever. He must believe that if he says it enough, people will believe him. I don't.

From where I am, a vote for Romney is just a vote against Obama. Next time, I'll tell you why that is a bad idea.