I thought (and wrote) that the Washington Republican caucuses for President of the United States would come and go this March 3rd with a GOP nomination fully secured for Mitt Romney and that my choice would be largely irrelevant. My home state rendered largely irrelevant again. And while I still think Romney will win the Republican nomination to take on Barrack Obama, I’m less sure. Newt Gingrich‘s win in South Carolina and his surge in national polls, irregardless of Florida, have me thinking I must take a stand, make a choice, and help my choice win.
While I’m not ALL there yet, I do like Mitt Romney more and more. I like Newt Gingrich too. And for the record I increasingly like Rick Santorum. But I’m probably going to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor.
Newt’s bombast is not a turn off for me the way it is for so many others. I was raised with a strong and often angry father, who yelled and was not afraid to show that he was upset. So I’m quite used to this character trait of Gingrich that turns off too many people and will probably be his undoing in the remaining nominating contests. I like Newt’s big ideas, and I like that he pisses off mainstream politicians of both parties. Wouldn’t you agree that going away from the politicians of Washington D.C. is not a negative?
But I said a couple of years ago that I’m not a one issue voter, but if I were, the one issue that is most important to me is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So much of what challenges us as Americans today is completely wrapped up in this one issue: race relations, jobs, drugs, terrorism. We absolutely must secure our borders. As best I can tell Mitt Romney comes the closest to my views on this subject than any of the remaining candidates. For instance, I do agree with him that if you make it nearly impossible for illegals to get jobs, and you remove so many of the other magnets that draw these people to illegally cross our borders many will return to their own homes. Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stay if they can’t feed themselves or their families.
And as a side note, don’t believe Barrack Obama for a second when he positions himself as tough on this subject. In the State of the Union he claimed there were fewer illegal border crossings now than there had been in years. True or not that has nearly nothing to do with anything he or his administration have done. It has more to do with the economy. Why illegally come to the U.S. now? There are no jobs to be had (which further advances Romney’s assertion that no jobs means they will go home).
Secondly, I like Romney’s plans to waive the Capital Gains tax for those making under $200,000. This idea was panned when it was first introduced. Romney’s opponents claiming that such a tax is not paid by people making under $2ook, but instead by people like him. Wrong! I know. I’ve had to pay this tax and I didn’t like it one bit. I wrote a check to the Federal Government for $12,000 after selling my families first home, which we had moved from and kept as a rental for 7 years. The threat of having to pay it again was the primary reason we sold our second house after keeping it as a rental for nearly 3 years. It is a disincentive tax for me and for many other potential investors. I think less-so for those with higher incomes.
Eventually I’d like to see the high-end Capital Gains tax equal the high-end income tax rate. Because it is wrong for wealthy people to pay a much smaller rate than what the rest of us pay. And since they make a large majority of their income through capital gains rather than through salary, naturally they will pay the lower tax rate. When Ronald Reagan reformed taxes in 1986 he agreed with Democrats to make the Capital Gains tax rate 28%, equal to the highest income tax rate. Like Gingrich has said, I’d rather see the income tax lower and expanded to more people than raise the level of the Capital Gains tax rate.
Lastly, if you consider the only negatives on Romney are that he is wealthy and that he is a “flip-flopper”, you really seriously need to re-examine your priorities. After all when making an argument isn’t the idea to bring people to your way of thinking? And for Conservative Pro-Lifers hasn’t Mitt Romney come toward your way of thinking? Isn’t that a good thing?
So those are my reasons. My mind could change. But for now I’m with Mitt. What are your reasons? Who do you support and why?
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you find this blog interesting I would be honored if you would share it. TY.
- GOP Erasing District of Tea Party Star (newser.com)
- US election 2012: Mitt Romney surges to double-digit lead in Florida (telegraph.co.uk)
- And more polls with Romney leads: PPP: Romney +7; InsiderAdvantage: Romney +5 (tampabay.com)
- Letter: What a contrast between upright Romney and discredited Gingrich (tcpalm.com)