Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012pany fourteen years ago, he helpedfix companies such as <strong>St</strong>aples andSp<strong>or</strong>ts Auth<strong>or</strong>ity, creating m<strong>or</strong>e than200 000 jobs in the United <strong>St</strong>ates.Now, this debate reallycomes down to three main questions:what has <strong>Obama</strong> proven inthe past four years, what experiencedoes Mitt <strong>Romney</strong> have that hecould bring to Washington, and whocan handle the economy better?As has been stated multipletimes, <strong>Obama</strong> has not proven himselfin the past four years. He hashad an approval rating of under 50%,has failed to come even remotelyclose to his economic goals, and hasalienated many of the religious withhis policies. He has debilitated themilitary which has led to unrest inthe Middle East. It is evident that<strong>Obama</strong>’s track rec<strong>or</strong>d is not good,which is why his campaign focuseson attacking <strong>Romney</strong>, a campaignof defamation and blame.American Election - DebateWe see that <strong>Romney</strong> hasplenty of experience to bring toWashington. He has a self-madef<strong>or</strong>tune, made from his successfulbusinesses. He saved the 2002Olympics from a budget crisis. Hehas governed in Massachusetts anderased a budget deficit, while w<strong>or</strong>kingwith democrats. Mitt <strong>Romney</strong>brings key economic experienceto the table, perfect f<strong>or</strong> resolvingAmerica’s struggling economy, andhas the necessary bi-partisanshipskills to get it done.Throughout this debate, themain issue has been the economy,and it is plain that <strong>Romney</strong> is thebetter man. <strong>Obama</strong> has failed tojumpstart the economy with hisspending policies, and even witha democratic maj<strong>or</strong>ity in Congressand the Senate, he has fallen waysh<strong>or</strong>t of his economic goals by tentrillion dollars and nine millionjobs. The American public believes<strong>Romney</strong> will handle the economybetter, because of his previous businessexperience, and his five-pointplan can get the American economyback on track.This debate is all about whois better f<strong>or</strong> America, and to getthere, there are a couple of key questionsyou must ask yourself. Areyou happy with how the depressingstate of the economy has beenhandled over the past four years?Are you satisfied with the debilitatedmilitary and <strong>Obama</strong>’s crumblingf<strong>or</strong>eign policy? Do you want a presidentfocused on government-runhealth care when f<strong>or</strong>ty-six millionAmericans are on food stamps andf<strong>or</strong>ty million are living in poverty?All of these questions point to oneanswer; if you want real hope andchange, you’ll choose Mitt <strong>Romney</strong>f<strong>or</strong> president.46Let’s Get Serious: Four M<strong>or</strong>e Years!Sky HuntContribut<strong>or</strong>After examination of thePro-<strong>Romney</strong> side of this debate,I have found some maj<strong>or</strong> flaws inthe points my opposition has made.He paints a picture of America asa country in tatters after a greatstruggle. The reality is that thestate of America as a nation hasimproved greatly since Barack<strong>Obama</strong> became the president. WhatAmerica needs right now is not Mitt<strong>Romney</strong> who will undo and takesteps in the wrong direction f<strong>or</strong> mostAmericans. What America reallyneeds is the progressive policies thatBarack <strong>Obama</strong> has been putting intoplace since he started his first termas President of the United <strong>St</strong>ates ofAmerica.Although there are stillproblems with America, <strong>Obama</strong> hastaken steps to fix these problems f<strong>or</strong>the long term. These fixes includesuch policies as the “<strong>Obama</strong>Care”health care system that would givem<strong>or</strong>e people access to medicalservices and insurance to m<strong>or</strong>epeople who may not have been ableto aff<strong>or</strong>d it otherwise. Barack <strong>Obama</strong>is still a leader that many peoplecan still look up to. He is relatableto many people as he has a smallfamily, is very friendly, hum<strong>or</strong>ous,and does a lot of activities publically
Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012that many people can relate to, suchas playing basketball. Not manypeople can relate to a millionairewho owns businesses and constantlyonly wants to talk numbers, like<strong>Romney</strong>. I guess if my opponentthinks that people shouldn’t be ableto relate to a leader, then <strong>Romney</strong>would be a perfect candidate. Andif my opponent does, he mustthink that the only voting publicthat matters are the wealthy andpowerful in today’s society. In thatcase than why not just disallow allcitizens not in the top 1% in termsof salary and material wealth fromvoting, theref<strong>or</strong>e creating a utopiansociety f<strong>or</strong> the rich. Better yet, whynot go back to the days of slavery,when the rich owned all and thepo<strong>or</strong> did all the hard w<strong>or</strong>k, gettingnothing, not even their freedom, inreturn?As f<strong>or</strong> Mitt <strong>Romney</strong>’s fivepointeconomic plan, I think that it isnot the right way to go on this issue,but I’m sure many Republicansdo. Mitt <strong>Romney</strong>’s plan calls f<strong>or</strong>achieving energy independence,better trading, cutting the deficit,giving m<strong>or</strong>e people the skills tosucceed through education, andchampioning small business.Apparently f<strong>or</strong>mer Republicancandidates John McCain and Ge<strong>or</strong>geW. Bush think that 5 point plans aregreat too. In fact, <strong>Romney</strong>’s planis eerily similar to McCain’s, andMcCain’s is very similar to Bush’s.American Election - DebateWow! The Republican Party hasreally outdone themselves withcoming up with new, progressiveplans to rebuild the economy. Allthree of these five-point plansinvolve opening trading markets,cutting government spending,increased focus on education,helping out small business, andproducing m<strong>or</strong>e energy in America.Just look at how successful theseplans are. McCain was extremelysuccessful considering how mostpeople expected the Republicans tofinish in the election, and Bush hasheard nothing but critical acclaimf<strong>or</strong> his leadership during his twoterms as President...right? ClearlyAmerica has chosen what directionit has wanted to go in economicallysince Bush’s last term.Now on I get that the USAis a nation founded under God, andit is even still printed on its money,but should we allow any religion <strong>or</strong>combination of religions shape lawsand government spending? Theclear answer is no, because althoughone person is voted into the positionof president, it is that person’s jobto make sure he looks out f<strong>or</strong> all ofhis citizens. The fact is that even iffour fifths of people are religious inAmerica, there is still a fifth that’srights need to be accounted f<strong>or</strong>. Justbecause Planned Parenthood receivesfunding under <strong>Obama</strong> doesn’t meanthat a pregnant woman will have toget the ab<strong>or</strong>tion; it means that she isgiven the choice whether she can <strong>or</strong>not. I also, personally, believe thatmen shouldn’t have any say in whata woman can <strong>or</strong> cannot do in thissituation because men will never beput into this situation. I don’t thinkthat ab<strong>or</strong>tion is the main problemwhen talking about funding f<strong>or</strong>Planned Parenthood, I personallythink it is sex education and meansof contraception. The Abstinenceonlysex education that manyChristians preach has been provento be vastly ineffective on unwantedpregnancies. The reason f<strong>or</strong> this isthe fact that no matter how hard youpreach abstinence-only, the act inquestion will still occur, and withoutproper education on the subject andaff<strong>or</strong>dable contraception, unwantedpregnancies are still going to bean issue. If funding f<strong>or</strong> PlannedParenthood is cut like my opponentclaims is f<strong>or</strong> the better f<strong>or</strong> mostAmericans, a good p<strong>or</strong>tion of thepopulation will be left withoutoptions if they want to plan a familyresponsibly.In closing, when selectingwho you’d rather have leadAmerica, take these points intoconsideration. If you want an ultraright-wing president that mostpeople won’t relate to and is out oftouch with modern policies, chooseMitt <strong>Romney</strong>. However, if you wanta better option f<strong>or</strong> America, one thatwill lead to a better America, chooseBarack <strong>Obama</strong>.Who will win? <strong>Obama</strong> <strong>or</strong> <strong>Romney</strong>?American Presidential Election 2012!47
- Page 4 and 5: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 6 and 7: 6Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 201
- Page 8 and 9: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 11 and 12: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 13 and 14: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 15 and 16: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 17 and 18: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 19 and 20: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 21 and 22: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 23 and 24: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 25 and 26: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 27 and 28: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 29 and 30: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 31 and 32: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 33 and 34: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 35 and 36: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 37 and 38: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 39 and 40: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 41 and 42: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 43 and 44: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 45: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012
- Page 49 and 50: Volume 66, Issue 2 October 31, 2012