Varför jag stöder Romney över Gingrich

Jag, John Gustavsson, stöder Mitt Romney över Newt Gingrich. Jag hoppades slippa stödja Romney, men om alternativen är Romney och Gingrich så är valet självklart för min del. Läs varför nedan:

***

Elections are tough times for political junkies. They're fun, they're one of the main things we like about politics, but they never leave us fully satisfied. This presidential election is a case in point. I began following the campaign hoping Mike Huckabee would jump in, and I refrained from endorsing someone else until the deadlines for getting on the ballot in the early primary states had passed.

When I did endorse, I endorsed Herman Cain. I was, and still is, impressed by his new thinking, his optimistic approach and likeability.

Yet, the race appears to have come down to Romney vs Gingrich. I write "appears to", because we can't take anything for granted about this race - that is one thing we should know by now. Yet, time is running out, voters are making up their minds, and another flavor of the month seems unlikely. It's hard to fundraise enough money when you rise too late - Mike Huckabee experienced that in 2008, so even if Santorum or someone else were able to somehow boost their poll performance, it would most likely be too late, and a victory in Iowa would not be followed up with victories in South Carolina and Florida - two significantly more expensive states to play in.

In the fight between Romney and Gingrich, I am proud to announce that I am 100 % behind Romney.

I've never been a fan of either, which you know if you've read my posts over the past year. Yet, choosing Romney over Gingrich is easy, for the following reasons:

1) Romney is a businessman, Gingrich is not. I believe Mitt Romney will have an easier time communciating with and gaining the trust of America's entrepreneurs. Trust is vital in a recovery. Romney knows how to speak the language of investors. Gingrich only knows english.

2) Gingrich is a bad moral example, in a time when America needs good moral examples more than ever. Romney, for all his weaknesses, is a good husband and father - something that could not be said about Gingrich who is neither. Yes, I know Gingrich has supposedly repented, but I believe that his marital infidelities were more than just sins: They're part of his personality. We all have things we're not so good at, we all have some weakness: For some it is gambling, for some it is drinking, for others it is cheating. We all have some area we are prone to do badly in, that's not a problem in itself. Yet, the commander-in-chief cannot be a man who is prone to commit adultery when put under pressure. Even if Newt has realized the error of his ways (and I sure hope he has), this is still an achilles heel that he will have to live with for the rest of his life: Just like some people are prone to drink, he is prone to cheat. You wouldn't put an alcoholic in charge of a liquor store, would you? Not even if he hadn't had a drink in a long time, had sworn to stay sober, and had realized that his past behavior was wrong, right? Because running a liquor store would tempt him to fall back into his old habits. Just like the presidency would tempt Gingrich to fall back into his old habits, and destroy his marriage with Calista. As christians, we are not to cause our brothers to stumble. By electing Gingrich, we are doing just that. As president, he will get as many opportunities to cheat as an alcoholic in charge of a liquor store gets to drink.

3) Gingrich is a bad leader. As leader of the house Republicans, he managed to somehow repair Clinton's reputation, lose seats in a midterm election and get 83 ethical complaints filed against him before he was finally forced out by his own party. Maybe Gingrich has repented from his sins, but has he really developed any leadership skills since he left the house? Where is the evidence for that? Gingrich just wasn't born to be a leader.

4) Gingrich is a narcissist. While I have no doubt that Romney has high thoughts about himself, he is far from Gingrich level. Newt Gingrich has a big head - physically and mentally - and it keeps getting in the way all the time. Gingrich thought it was perfectly okay to impeach Clinton while having an affair on his own andhe thinks it's perfectly okay to say that politicians who created the mortgage mess should go to jail while he himself worked for Fannie and Freddie. He divorced his first wife when she got cancer and stated that she wasn't pretty enough to be the wife of a president. Those are just a few of the many many signs that Gingrich is suffering from narcissism and applies a different standard to himself than he does to others. He thinks too highly of himself, and is therefore not suitable to be a public servant. Because, a public servant is... a servant.

5) Gingrich thinks I'm stupid. Whenever you listen to Gingrich, you get the impression he really thinks you're an idiot. Like when he denied having supported an individual mandate, only to admit seconds later that yes, he did. He was counting on no-one to call him out on it, and he was hoping the audience wouldn't check the facts. Romney sometimes assumes the opposite and gets too complicated for normal people to get him, which politically may be a problem - yet, I prefer his style to Gingrich. Also, among the shenanigans Gingrich has pulled in recent years are the "2010 Champions of Medicine" and the "2009 Entrepreneur of the Year" awards. In case you don't remember, basically what he did was he sent out thousands of letters to doctors all around the country (many of whom were registered democrats) telling them they had won the "2010 Champions of Medicine", and invited them to join him during election night and watch the results come in. What he didn't tell them was that they had to pay $5,000 dollars to attend and collect their prize. He assumed doctors would be stupid enough to fall for that (I sure hope they weren't), just like he assumed the same about entrepreneurs the year before (one of those awards went to a porn company btw). Gingrich looks down on voters, which I guess is part of his narcissistic personality described above, and it's another reason why he should not be president.

6) Electability. If Romney is the nominee, I am fully convinced that he will win against Obama. With Gingrich, I'm fully convinced about the opposite. Many of the Newters out there brag about his debating skills, and how he will be able to own Obama in the debates. While Gingrich has done well in the debates, I doubt that being a good debater will be enough to beat Obama. The debates didn't decide the last election, or the one before that. They just don't matter very much as long as no-one screws up really badly and says something that ends up on youtube or in an attack ad. In primaries, they matter because they give you name recognition, but in the general - not so much. Gingrich also would have a hard time keeping the election about the issues, because Obama is definitely going to dig up that graveyard he has in his closet. Expect fannie mae and freddie mac to come up in a debate, as well as Gingrich's lobbying for pharmaceutical companies. Oh, and all his affairs. We want this election to be a referendum on Obama's economic policies. Romney will ensure that it will be. Gingrich will ensure that it won't.

I wasn't sure whether to call this post an "endorsement" or just a "statement of preference" - it's definitely the latter, maybe the former. Anyway, I hope you get the point: If the primary comes down to (and it pretty much already has) Romney vs Gingrich, I'll join the rest of you rombots and cheer for your guy.

Thanks for reading,

John Gustavsson

Se även tidigare inlägg:

O Reilly om Romney vs Gingrich 20111202

Child labor: Is Newt right? 20111202