Skip to main content


Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM PST

Dear Mr. Romney

by PolitiSis

November 15, 2012

Mitt Romney
PO Box 149756
Boston, MA 02114-9756

Dear Mr. Romney,

As a registered Libertarian during the primaries for the 2008 elections, I very seriously considered you a viable candidate as President of the United States. Had you won your party’s nomination then, I would have had a very difficult decision. At the time, I felt that you were an astute businessman who would be able to maintain an even temper and would be a good negotiator – skills I feel are important both in foreign policy and while working “across the aisle” with Congress.

In all honesty, by the time the primaries for the 2012 elections were over, there was zero chance that you would get my vote. Even if it were not for the fact that President Obama has done an outstanding job as President (displaying exactly the two qualities I noted above as important to me), your poor performance and far-hard-right position was disappointing to say the least.

But the elections were over, and I would have been happy to move forward except that you had to show your lack of character yet again while speaking to your donors on Wednesday. Mr. Romney, I am not young, nor black nor Hispanic, nor poor; but you have made me angry enough to write my first ever letter of this type. How dare you insult me by claiming that President Obama bought our votes via the Affordable Care Act?

More importantly, your obnoxious excuse illustrates exactly why you lost this election. The Affordable Care Act is not “buying votes” – it is a critically necessary step towards bringing the United States up to par with every other first world country and most second/third world countries. The United States spends more per person yet has worse outcomes in nearly every category because we still operate on the failed “for profit” health insurance system. I won’t get into the moral implications of that with you Mr. Romney, but I will note that the Affordable Care Act is a small step towards allowing people like me – not young, not Hispanic, not black, not poor – to make sure our sons and daughters have health coverage until their careers are launched.

Mr. Romney, my daughter is Type 1 diabetic. Let me emphasize – she is Type 1 – the kind that is not lifestyle related. She didn’t choose to be an insulin-dependent diabetic, nor is there a single thing she (or I) could have done to prevent her being diabetic. Insulin-dependency is a life or death situation, Mr. Romney. There is no pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps – my daughter either gets her insulin to stay alive, or she dies. When she turned 19, she was dropped from the health insurance policy she was on because she was no longer a minor; but because of her pre-existing condition we could not find a replacement policy… at any price. It came too late to help my daughter, but one of the most important provisions in the Affordable Care Act allows parents like me – not young, not black, not Hispanic, not poor – to keep our adult children on our health insurance policies until they are 26 years old. This is not “buying” our votes, Mr. Romney. This is good public policy! And the health care situation in the United States is a "big issue for the whole country", one of the biggest!

Finally, Mr. Romney, if it is your opinion that using the President’s office, in concert with Congress, to shape public policy in accordance with your values and the values of those who have voted for you is “buying votes”, that applies to you too. You fully intended to use the office of the President of the United States to shape policy in accordance with your own world view – that of “trickle down” economics and “job creators”. You would have most certainly implemented policies to benefit business people and the wealthy. Were you “buying” their votes Mr. Romney? Will you be honest enough with yourself to see the fallacy of your excuse to your donors?

Either way, Mr. Romney, the majority of the American people have spoken, and we have rejected your view of how the United States of America should operate. Kindly give us credit for being at least as intelligent as your wealthy donors, and for wanting what is best for everyone (not just our own bank accounts). Do not insult us or show your utter lack of character by brushing us off as having our votes “bought”. You lost the election because your policy/economic positions are not good for the majority in the USA; and because your flirtation with the far-right TeaParty types was stomach turning.

Discuss

The main focus of Rick Santorum's opposition to pre-natal testing, specifically amniocentesis, is his claim that it leads directly to abortion. There is certainly a problem with his position - he is clearly trying to deny abortions to women by denying them the information they need to make their own decision. Quite the opposite of the "informed choice" rhetoric claimed by conservative politicians when they want to stick ultrasound probes up women's vaginas in the name of "information."

But there is another aspect that is being overlooked: his repeated use of the word "force" to shape the narrative in two ways. First, by loading his speech with this word, is he trying to leave the impression that it will be women who are forced to have an amniocentesis? It reminds me of the way the build-up to the Iraq war was done – you won’t find a clip of then-President Bush actually saying “Iraq was behind 9-11” yet polls during that time show repeatedly that this was the message being received. Likewise, when Rick Santorum says “I'm not for any of these things to be forced” and “the government [should not] force people...,” it requires a look at the transcript to know he isn’t saying that women will be forced to have the test.

In his interview with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation February 19th, Rick Santorum said:

Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.
Which brings me to the second issue – since when should insurance companies have more freedom than women? He doesn’t want insurance companies to be required to provide uniform comprehensive health coverage for women, even though women (most people) have no freedom of choice when it comes to what insurance company they get. Insurance companies should have "the freedom" to decide what coverage will be included in their policies. So where does this leave women's freedom to equal access of medical care?

Mitt Romney may have been the Republican candidate that came right out and said “Corporations are people” but Rick Santorum clearly agrees.

Discuss

Boehner double-speaks again:

“The proposals the president outlined tonight merit consideration. We hope he gives serious consideration to our ideas as well,” Boehner, the top congressional Republican, said in a statement released late on Thursday.

The proposal the President presented ALREADY gives consideration to Republican ideas... it is 60% tax cuts! So what Boehner is saying, in my opinion, is that Republicans want it 'all or nothing' AGAIN. Meanwhile Cantor is accusing Obama of being the one wanting 'all or nothing.' Listening to Republicans in Congress is like living in bizarro land where up is down and none of the words have meaning.

Mitch McConnell said (BEFORE the speech) that the President's address wasn't a job's plan, but a re-election plan. And he's correct! But who's fault is that Mr. McConnell? It is because the Republicans have done absolutely ZERO to help this country that the President has had to take this stand. He has proposed an excellent bi-partisan plan that you could have proposed months or years ago. You didn't. So now he has. You can either pass the job's act - in which case our economy will improve by 2012 and Obama will be re-elected; or you can do as you've done since 2008 and filibuster everything. In that case, Republicans will lose seats in Congress while the President wins his re-election. And then a Democratic controlled congress will do in 2013 what the Republicans promised in 2010 but have refused to do to-date: create jobs.

In the meantime, millions of Americans will suffer for another 14 months because of Republican political posturing.

Discuss

CNN just reported that the White House has released the long-form birth certificate for President Obama. Hawaii made an exception to their standard policy and provide two certified copies of the long-form from their records.

Story here: http://www.northjersey.com/...

Certificate here: http://dng.northjersey.com/...

Already there are claims that it is a forgery which caused a friend of mine to say that "he really can't win on this."

I think he not only wins on this issue, but the old-school Republicans do too. Sure there will be screams of "fake" but they are going to look even more ridiculous than before.

What I do think is interesting is the timing. Obama could have gotten Hawaii to make this exception right after he was elected. Why didn't he? Before now, I just assumed he was taking the attitude that the "birther movement" was so ridiculous to all of the sane people in both parties that he didn't want to waste time with it.

But now I think he was taking his time to wait for the right moment. And the lead up to the 2012 elections - especially with Trump being so vocal about it - is perfect timing.

I do predict that Trump will take credit for forcing Obama to release it. And the tinfoil hat part of me wonders if Trump's involvement wasn't somehow part of an organized plan between top level Dems and old-school Republicans to knock the stuffing out of this particular lunatic fringe of the Republican party, and kill Michele Bachmann's chances (among others) at even running for the presidency. Trump steps in as a potential candidate for President. He has the name recognition and the popularity, and he immediately latches on to the birthers rhetoric, which forces Michele Bachmann to declare the birther issue dead. The one thing that has bugged me from the start is that Trump is just not that stupid. He's an opportunist, but other than creating some short term buzz for himself, I could not understand how Trump expected to actually run for President while looking like a complete lunatic.

So now I wonder if the plan is/was for Trump to kick up media attention and make it a really big issue again so that Hawaii (with White House approval) could release the long form for maximum impact. Trump gets to claim victory in solving the mystery while he renews his contract for next season's Apprentice and exits stage left from the presidential playing field. Bachmann and other birthers no longer have a platform to run on leaving more room for more sane Republicans. And Obama has one less distraction during his campaign.

What do you think? Is my headband on too tight?

Discuss
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site