Humphrey (D)
McGovern (D)
Carter (D)
Reagan (R)
Reagan (R)
Bush (41) (R)
Clinton (D)
Clinton (D)
Gore (D)
Bush (43) (R)
McCain (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.
Last night’s 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
