If Mitt’s negatives are not stagnating his support, perhaps his positives are too weak? Mitt was a governor in a state that required him to work across the aisle. He was a very successful turnaround expert that despite Speaker Gingrich’s twisted assaults did create thousands of jobs. He has managed large projects like rescuing the Salt Lake Olympics. In addition, in the age of TV and 24 hour news cycles, Mitt is a good looking man with a made for TV family. Mitt’s positives would make him the ideal republican candidate.
No, it is not Mitt’s negatives or his positives that prevents him from gaining wide acceptance and support. The reason Mitt struggles to build momentum is that his vision for tomorrow is…uninspiring, and tweaking at the edges. Reading his 150 page tome on how to transform America can only be compared to knee jerkers like the Congressional budget of 2011 (I know the budget is more of a fairy tale, but let’s just pretend one exists). A document that was supposed to be both inspirational and transformational was nothing but a big thud.
Mitt’s tax solution is the flat tax. Do you honestly feel that tax complexity is the issue with our economic growth? The solution…is to roll back a hundred years of progressive thought and introduce a regressive tax system that will laden the 50% that currently pays nothing with something. Good luck with that. Mitt! If you want to be visionary stop taxing productivity and tax consumption. It is the embedded tax burden thatAmericacan do without not spread the burden around. Even Mr. Cain’s half step of 9-9-9 is better than Mitt’s lack luster solution.
Mitt’s regulatory approach is equally uninspired. Our next leader needs to be more visionary than just rolling back what the President has done. What is wrong with the regulatory bodies having boards with outside directors to reign in the insanity of the regulators? Instituting more enterprise mentality on as many federal agencies as possible would be logical. Agencies like the FCC, FAA and TSA should be funded by the industries using their services but also managed by a board with directors from those being regulated. Just rolling back regulation tells us little. Politicians have been running on this for a hundred years with little success.
When it comes to the border, Mitt’s solution continues to be non-inspirational. Let’s think a little out of the box here. The inability to control our borders threatens our national identity. What is wrong with two fences, a physical fence and a virtual fence? The virtual fence could be constructed with a national ID card and a robust validation process. Requiring identification at key services such as employment, banking, healthcare and education would eliminate the attraction to illegal entry. Fines should be heavy for violators and for government officials not supporting the law; they should be removed from office. Sanctuary cities should be a thing of the past. One thing Mitt did get right is opposing Newt Gingrich’s ridiculous notion that if you have successfully broken our laws for 25 years… you win!
These are just three areas that Mitt could strengthen. If Mitt is going to win the presidency then he needs to become principled based and inspirational.