Mitt Romney for President
print
tell a friend
Photo Credit: Yori Yanover
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.
tell a friendAbout 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.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Mitt Romney for President”
Loading ...
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.
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.