If the problem facing the country today is lack of leadership, then I suggest that a leader step in and take charge. Who would I nominate? Mitt Romney. After all, he wants the job a few months from now. All he would be doing is accelerating the process a bit.
Of course, Mr. Romney cannot set policy for the country, but there is nothing to stop him from meeting bi-partisan groups from Congress in an effort to hammer out legislation that could pass both houses. He’s going to need to do something of the like soon, so he might as well get some practice in now. If he has a plan to save this country, it will be just as valid now as it will be in January, 2013. So, let’s see what it is, and get it under way.
It’s not as though Mr. Romney would be taking anything away from Mr. Obama—nothing that Mr. Obama has suggested lately seems to make any impression on Congress. Let’s give Mr. Romney an opportunity to show his stuff. That would give the voters a chance to see whether it’s worthwhile to switch horses or not. Why should we wait for months, toss one guy out of office in favor of another guy, only to find out that the second guy is no better than the first? We might just as well have kept the original guy in, if that’s the case. Maybe allowing the challenger an opportunity to show his stuff will encourage a true choice in candidates. And it will give Congress a chance to weigh in on who they’d rather work with.
Employers often require a trial period for new employees before they hire them. Why shouldn’t we do the same with candidates for President? Let Mr. Romney exercise his leadership skills with the members of Congress, and if he succeeds in helping them to iron out legislation that can pass both houses and be enacted, it is a win-win situation for the whole country. Well, except for Mr. Obama.
And if Mr. Romney does manage to make a difference, that should tell us, much more than negative ads or tax returns do, who should be running this country for the next four years. Especially since, at this stage, Mr. Romney would not have the force of any office behind him. He would be, could only be, acting as a private citizen, merely attempting to negotiate some agreement between two recalcitrant parties. If he can accomplish anything now, imagine how much more effective he would be as the chosen officeholder.
Even if the Republicans in Congress are tempted to compromise merely to increase Mr. Romney’s chances in November, how can that be a bad thing? On the other hand, if the Democrats remain obstinate and refuse to come to any understanding, that would give voters an idea of how things will shake out for the next few years.
This idea is no stranger than when President Carter attempted to broker a deal between Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel. Mr. Carter had no authority, other than his personal presence, to bring these two world leaders to the table. The American people encouraged him during the process, and lauded him for the goals he achieved.
What sort of response do you think Mr. Romney would have, were he to even broach the idea? Cries of interference, influence and interloper would ring throughout the land. His cause would be dismissed before he ever got started.
But why not let him try? If he falls flat on his face, the Obama party would have all the more reason to rejoice, and to proclaim that Mr. Romney is no more able than is their candidate. And if he succeeds in brokering a deal to pass some legislation that is beneficial to the country, anyone with an ounce of sense and consideration for the fate of this nation should be trumpeting his name from the rooftops.
Oh, and if you thought that was a clever idea, let me add a corollary. Although you would never be able to guess it from listening or watching any of the large print and media outlets, leaning either left, right, or forward, there are more than two political parties who have put forth candidates for the Presidency.
Just because they don’t have the clout or the money to foist their candidates’ names in front of the American public every two minutes, doesn’t mean that there are not viable alternatives out there. If Mr. Romney should have a shot at being able to persuade the members of Congress to put aside their differences for the good of the country that elected them to high office, then so should Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party; Stewart Alexander, Socialist; Kathyern Lane (R); Andy Martin (R); Jimmy McMillan (R); Tom Miller (R); Ron Paul (R); Stephen Rollins (I); Matt Snyder (R); Randall Terry (Pro-Life); Danny Woodring (I); and Vern Wuensche (R).
Didn’t realize there were so many candidates? The current system does an excellent job on non-reporting on them. Just because they don’t have the wherewithal to influence the powers-that-be to get the nomination of one of the two major parties doesn’t mean that they don’t have excellent ideas or the ability to govern. Every one of these people has some plan to make this nation a better place, yet none of them has much opportunity to put forth his ideas to the American voters.
I say give them all a chance. At least, let each one of them pitch one idea to Congress. Give them a week to hash out what they can, and see where we end up. It’s not as though Congress doesn’t have the time to give them—they’re just over on the Hill not passing budgets anyway.
And who knows? Some actual good might come out of this. And that’s what we all want, right? Right?