web analytics
August 30, 2014 / 4 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (L) visits the JewishPress.com booth at The Event. And the Winners of the JewishPress.com Raffle Are…

Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event



Mitt Romney for President

I choose candidates based on who I think will be do the best job for the country, for Israel, and for the Jewish people. I do not vote by party.
Romney_Official_Photo

Photo Credit: Yori Yanover

I am not a partisan voter. My voting record clearly shows that. Here is my voting record since 1968:

Humphrey (D) McGovern (D) Carter (D) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Bush (41) (R) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Gore (D) Bush (43) (R) McCain (R)

I choose candidates based on who I think will be do the best job for the country, for Israel, and for the Jewish people. I do not vote by party.

Although I have finally made my decision – for the first time I am not as sure as I usually am about which candidate will actually be the better President.

The last debate added nothing toward that end. The two candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney remain the same in my eyes. Their views were not made clearer at all on any of the issues that are important to the American people nor to me as a Jew.

I recently wrote that their views on Israel though not identical are both positive – and not all that dissimilar. I also said that for the first time my decision would not be based on that issue. Instead -“It’s (still) the economy, Stupid!” Of course the economy matters to Jews just as much as it does to everyone else. But it is definitely not a Jewish issue.

I do not see any break away solutions by either candidate. The President’s policies have thus far not done the job. Unemployment is still high – as are gas prices. His stimulus polices haven’t really helped all that much. The deficit is soaring . He is also over focusing on environmental issues – by over regulating businesses and preventing more opportunities to become energy independent. That too stifles economic growth. And adds to the deficit

His counter to that is that a divided congress is holding him back from doing more. And that his energy policies are the most productive in history. But that doesn’t explain why he didn’t do more to fix the economy during the first 2 years of his administration when he had a bullet proof congress. Instead he focused on a passing a controversial health care bill that contributes to the exploding deficit.

Romney on the other hand wants to implement a supply side economic policy that lowers taxes for everyone. He says that small businessmen many of whom file individual tax returns would be hurt by the higher taxes the Obama administration wants to impose on them and that would dis-incentivize them from investing the capital they need to grow their businesses and hire new people.

The President countered that Romney’s economic policy does not add up and that it would either explode the deficit even further, or that he would have to cut popular deductions like mortgage interest to make up for the loss.

Romney says that he would go full bore into developing all sources of energy including off shore drilling and do things like extending the Canadian pipeline (which the President rejected).

Obama also claims that he has actually increased oil production under his administration.

Romney would increase the military budget to restore it to the levels that existed before the Obama military budget cuts.

Obama says that the military doesn’t need to be as large and expensive as is used to be – even according the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Increasing the military budget will only grow the deficit.

How the President will grow the economy is still a mystery to me. Platitudes like “the rich must pay their fair share” are meaningless hyperbole designed to appeal to class envy in my view.

He has had four years to fix the economy and he hasn’t done it yet. He still blames Bush saying he inherited this mess from him – and that it was much worse than anyone thought. He touts the fact that in spite of that – the economy has still improved. Though admittedly only slightly. He now claims he needs more time and a willing congress.

Romney says Obama’s polices have failed and it’s time for someone else with a different approach to try. He claims his business experience will help him achieve more private sector jobs and a return to a healthy economy.

I don’t really see either side having the decisive winning argument here. But I do believe that supply side economics works. That’s what Reagan did. He took us from a period of a stagnant economy and the highest inflation in history (coining the term stagflation) to a period of great prosperity where unprecedented numbers of jobs were created.

On this issue I therefore lean towards Romney. Obama had his chance and failed to keep his promises. Excuses about why he didn’t don’t do it for me.

The fact is, however, that my primary concern is still the welfare of Israel and the Jewish people. So despite my original disclaimer about there being little difference between the two I am re-examining the issue.

For Obama, there is a very big plus side. He has created the closest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. And he has paid for Israel’s “Iron Dome” defense system that protects it from rocket attacks by Israel’s border enemies (Hamas and Hezbollah).

This kind of cooperation is unprecedented and worthy of great appreciation. Last night the President said that it was his visit to Israel as a candidate in 2008 that motivated him to do that. He saw the effects of a Rocket attack and thought, “What if it were his children living in these border areas?” Frankly I don’t see how Romney or anyone else can top that.

On the other hand, I don’t think Romney would do anything to undermine what exists now. So this part of the equation is a wash. That leaves some very significant intangibles to be considered.

The big criticism of the President on that level is that he has shown little if any warmth towards the Jewish State. He has instead shown complete antipathy towards its Prime Minister. He has not visited Israel once since his candidacy. And purposely skipped Israel on his early Middle East “apology” tour.

(Lest anyone think it was not an apology tour, it is pretty clear from his statements that he was apologizing for his predecessor attitudes towards rest of the world – and more specifically the Arab world. He may not have used the word “apology”. But he clearly spoke in apologetic terms.)

He also tends to bias his criticisms toward Israel with respect to the “peace process” – blaming settlements as the primary obstacle to peace. Not that it isn’t an issue. But he seems to point only to that never criticizing in the slightest Palestinian refusal to negotiate unless their pre-conditions are met.

Then there is also that little blurb overheard when speaking to Putin about having more flexibility with respect to foreign policy issues after the election. When it comes to pressuring Israel that too is troubling.

The President seems to be so allergic to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he refused to meet with him on his recent visit to the UN – although he did manage to find time to meet with Egyptian President Morsi.

My impression of Romney is that none of this would have taken place. Although the policies of both men may be the same, I think it matters how the world perceives America’s relationship with Israel. Romney has known Netanyahu since his MIT days and is an admirer. With elections in Israel set to give Netanyahu his biggest mandate ever, I think it is important to show the world that Israel and the US not only have a military and intelligence bond – but that they have a real friendship. Obama has not done this. I think Romney will.

Then there is the matter of Iran and whether Israel and the US are on the same page on this issue. I think both candidates have shown their resolve – along with Israel – to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The only real difference is that Romney seems to be more willing to say that US and Israeli policy are identical.

Based on the aforementioned examination of the two candidates, I am endorsing Romney for President. His economic polices seem more in line with my understanding of what will work. Romney’s clearly warmer approach to Israel and other foreign policy issues is also more appealing to me. That said I am absolutely convinced that if the President is re-elected, Israel will not suffer.

Visit Emes Ve-Emunah.

About the Author: Harry Maryles runs the blog "Emes Ve-Emunah" which focuses on current events and issues that effect the Jewish world in general and Orthodoxy in particular. It discuses Hashkafa and news events of the day - from a Centrist perspctive and a philosphy of Torah U'Mada. He can be reached at hmaryles@yahoo.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

2 Responses to “Mitt Romney for President”

  1. After the election, a lot of Democrat Jews will be surprised to find out that Romney received, at least, 40% of the total Jewish vote. In Florida alone, Romney is a head from 3-5 points and Romney could not have such a lead without having a significant number of Jews living in Florida supporting him. Given Obama's record for the past 4 years, Obama has made the decision an easy one to vote for Romney this year.

  2. I also am not a Republican but am voting for Romney.

    I would disagree about the analysis of the last debate.

    Ed Koch, an Obama supporter, recently asked him to clarify that he would consider an attack on Israel to be deemed an attack on America.

    When asked that question in the debate, Obama answered with vague words about standing with Israel and having its back. Romney was clear he would respond with a military counter strike.

    During the 7 hour attack on the US consulate in Benghazi Obama did nothing to protect the staff. He told the nearby forces in Italy and elsewhere to do nothing.

    This is the real President Obama someone you can not depend on to help you in a crisis. He does not have anyone's back but his own. In case of a nuclear armed Iran his options on the table will be Chinese or Mexican take-out.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Binyamin and Chaya Maryles, uncle and aunt of Emes Ve-Emunah author Harry Maryles.
Current Top Story
ISIS in Quneitra
Updates from Kuneitra, Syria [video]
Latest Blogs Stories
The Palestinian Authority backed by EU funds, has sent Bedouin into the E-1 area of Maaleh Adumim to claim it is part of their fictional history.

The new “Begin Plan” is an impending nightmare, it rewards the Bedouins for brazen land-grabbing.

its a deal

There is absolutely nothing for Israel’s security in this American document.

A Jewish wedding.

Is it because of corrupt values and lack of meeting opportunities that we have a shidduch crisis?

Islamic Law

Israel is fighting the war that none of the Western world has the ability or courage to fight.

Finish the job! Sayyem et a missima!סיים את המסימה!

Life after 50? You better believe it! Tips on how to prepare and enjoy life after retirement.

While I am no fan of the two-state solution, I think I have a solution for the Gaza strip. Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I believe a Palestinian people, nation or Arab State ever existed in the history of the world and certainly was not occupied by Israel. If […]

Hamas targeted the Erez Crossing when it knew that Gazans and Israeli Arabs would be there, out in the open…

Does it really take Jewish innovation to come up with this idea?

If you don’t know who’s behind The terror in your mind The answer’s not hard to find, Blame the Jews

If feminism is mentioned at all, it is usually to condemn it as an anti Torah ideal.

“…people making jokes about turning this into a shelter rave, taking #bombshelterselfies…”

Marriage is not just about emotional fidelity but about financial fidelity as well.

So you want to blame Israel? First answer these 5 simple questions, and see if you even have a leg to stand on…

Hamas’s online Jihadi supporters and groupies are desperately trying to differentiate between their support for Hamas and supporting ISIS.

We all got degrees. We got married. We had families. We worked. We and were Koveih Itim

More Articles from Harry Maryles
A Jewish wedding.

Is it because of corrupt values and lack of meeting opportunities that we have a shidduch crisis?

femisim

If feminism is mentioned at all, it is usually to condemn it as an anti Torah ideal.

We all got degrees. We got married. We had families. We worked. We and were Koveih Itim

But the real culprit is William Schabas, who by comparison makes Richard Goldstone look like a saint

Israeli’s are a religious people; even secular Jews believe that God is active in this world.

If Hamas would simply stop firing rockets into Israel, all the carnage would stop instantly.

Inevitably when tragedies like this happen there is a sudden burst of Achdus. Tragedies unite.

Looking for a spiritual cause of a tragedy is a time honored tradition in Judaism.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/haemtza/mitt-romney-for-president-2/2012/10/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: