Rebuttal To a "misguided" rebuttal of my endorsement editorial, "The Case for Romney," published Sept 19, 2012 and posted here Sept 24.
The inaccuracy of Steve Pasco's rebuttal of my September 19 essay delineating reasons Obama should not be reelected was trumped by The Gazette's headline, “Let's Discuss Issues Factually.” My essay is based on fact and honest analysis of Obama's failed policies. But, I agree. Let's talk facts and analyze Pasco's accusations. His essay is highly flawed, disingenuous and misleading.
Pasco's assertion that criticism of the Obama administration's policies indicates hatred of Obama is biased and disingenuous. It's wrong, insulting and a disservice to readers.
I became active in 2008 to lead people here to defeat Obama (and did overwhelmingly here), not because we hated him, but because we loved America. Research into Obama's background revealed that he had less to qualify him than any presidential candidate in history – no accountable jobs and no management experience. His associations with anti-American radicals, defined him as one of them. Intimidated by the threat of being called a racist, John McCain would not define, or confront, Obama. He even refused to mention Obama's associations. Birds of a feather do flock together. When a president is elected, associates are appointed too. Obama has appointed many of his to key jobs, many you never hear of but they wield power with little control. EPA and DOE heads are but two, who have power without control. Chu of DOE wants gasoline prices equivalent to Europe, $7.00 /gallon when he declared it, now $9.00/ gallon. And, Obama declares he's helping the middle class!
Pasco states “to blame all the ills of the economy on President Obama is myopic and disingenuous.” Obama was not blamed for the meltdown. But, as president, it's his responsible to lead policy development to solve problems. His policies have not solved problems and have exacerbated some. Misguided energy policies and monetary stimulation of a structurally impaired economy exemplify the failures. Obama might have had some success had he used FDR's approach of employing people rather than paying off special interests. The economy is likely to remain mired under 2% GDP growth until structural deficiencies are corrected.
Pasco is not helpful by misleading readers with a vague and inappropriate reference to “American macro-economics.” He and the readers he wants to influence could benefit from an understanding of the cause of the economic collapse – bursting of the housing bubble and bank abuse that was a part of it. To understand this, readers must look at Bill Clinton's 1994 executive order expanding the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. It exploded the housing market 2-fold in one year and to 4-fold any prior peak. Mortgage floodgates were opened at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in both and sub-prime and prime mortgages. Banks abused the market by selling mortgage-backed investments worldwide. Borrowers defaulted and investments collapsed. The meltdown was on. Obama's policies have not addressed the loss of this segment of the economy.
Romney has a record of accomplishment and a history of surrounding himself with competent experienced people in his business and in governing Massachusetts. Pasco's refuting this misleads readers. He either is ignorant of management practices, as are Obama and his appointees, or he is being disingenuous again.
Obama's failed domestic policies disqualify him for reelection. So do his foreign policies. Obama avowed he'd cement favorable relations worldwide. It hasn't happened in spite of hype to the contrary. From not recognizing Iran's Green Movement to free Iranians from a radical theocracy to not resisting the Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt to the most recent murders of Americans in Libya, to stiff-arming Israel, he has failed. His vow to cooperate with Russia's Dmitry Medvedev after reelection is unacceptable. How about Latin America and most of Europe, especially Poland?
Pasco ascribes our problems to the two-party system. More factual is that the best among us don't present for election and the lesser ones are elected by non-discerning, uninformed voters. So it is with Obama. I stand by my essay and add failed foreign policies as to why Romney must defeat Obama.