Governor Romney, like his Republican Tea Party Membership, wants to take back his country!

Keywords or Terms: Defensive Argument; Public and Private Economic Sectors; Racist and Unconscionable Comments and leadership; Civility; American Politics; Bureau of Labor Statistics; All Men are created equal; Rights of every men or women are threatened, when the rights of one is abridged; Presidential candidate's responsibility; and, Free and Fair Election.

The Obama’s Campaign team’s central challenge, in addition to reelecting their candidate into White House oval office, includes fighting back criticisms when their candidate makes an oral or vocal slip. It is tempting to believe that their candidate is above board, that his comment was literary taken out of context; however, there are some slips that put a candidate on the spot, one that makes it seem he hardly has the grasps of what was going on with the American Economy. A subsequent clarification of what is now considered a slip may have helped put in perspective what the President meant to say; however, one slip like this puts the campaign team on the defensive. The Obama’s Administration might have been making comparative assessment between the economic performances of the private against the public sector, in its attempt to explain away the grinding nature of the current national economic environment; however, when the assessment or comment comes out as if the President was out of torch, then things get really murky and muddy. Further, when  the presumptive Republican's candidate response to the President's slip borders on extremity, like he wants to take back his country, one starts to wonder about the question of civility in American Politics once again. 

For several months, the American economy has been growing, but not at the pace that everyone will like. The latest statistical data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems for a while a hot topic in the Presidential campaign process; however, one gets the feeling that half of the pundits hardly know what they are talking about, when they start to accentuate a meaning more than what the data shows. Politicians themselves have been falling over topics in labor economics they hardly understand. The poor jobs creations in a tepid economic environment and the less than stalwart unemployment statistics have nearly put Obama’s Administration in the defensive. The Obama’s campaign team has thought long and hard on their chances come November 2012, due to the jobs situation. What the campaign team does not need, is their candidate drawing attention to what may be considered a nemesis. The truth is, the economy is in a slump for now and the unemployment statistics is improving, no matter what many pundits will tell you. The Bureau of labor statistics has been doing unemployment data aggregates and for all you may doubt, the labor market, is scheduled for an upward swing. Yes, the European Economies may have been testy and twisty for the recovery of the American Economy; however, the Obama’s campaign team can do without their candidate shooting himself in the foot. Saying that the private economic sector is doing better than the public’s easily serves as a fodder for opponents, especially the Republican members of congress and their presumptive flag bearer!

Notwithstanding the error from President Obama, many political observers and gurus wonder why the Romney’s campaign team introduced to the debate what will be considered, a racist or unconscionable comment. Governor Romney indicated he and his cohorts will like to take back their country in response to President Obama’s slip. A comment to which many say: is that really appropriate? Everyone wants this election to be about ideas; great ideas that will help the nation move further, not get meshed in a campaign of race and racism. The reality is that our economy and national debts are out of whack; and what we now need are both philosophical and practical arguments that will provide answers to our fiscal problems and under-performing labor market.

Years of tax cuts have failed the economy and our nation's fiscal health. The extension of  President Bush’s tax cut, which President Obama is vehemently against, has been a bane of contention regarding how to move the economy ahead. The latest comment from President Clinton regarding an extension of these taxes only for a limited time seems compelling; however, it has not provided the more convincing argument for further give-aways to millionaires among us; a policy decision that has continued to pile up on our debts; and, keep the national economy in poor fiscal health. If Mitt Romney wants to engage in constructive debates, it is advisable that he keeps his campaign’s message to the issue of the economy and what he truly understands about the labor market; rather than, what will be construed as a racist and unconscionable comment, from someone who will like to fill the shoes of the leader of the free world. It is known that Mitt Romney subscribes to tax cuts that will further aggravate our poor fiscal health. It is also known that given the opportunity, the presumptive Republican flag bearer, will like to do away with Medicare the way many of us know it today. What we hardly know, is that he completely subscribes to extreme views held by the Tea Party faction in his party.

To constrain the Obama’s campaign team, Governor Mitt Romney may choose to spur debates in the area of improving America’s Economy or laying foundation for spurring economic growth and jobs proliferation. Making unproductive comments just for the sake of winning election will not just cut it for many American voters, knowing that about ten million of them are out of work, and there are chances that continued European banking crisis may hold back our economic progress and performance. And if Romney wants to avoid further controversy about his candidature, he is better off, distancing himself from the Tea Party Republican group. To be sure that Mitt Romney is not intentionally bending over to the Tea Party group for the sake of votes, it is better he remains civil, as the whole country, and probably the whole world, is watching what is going on in America's presidential campaign exercise. To make volatile comments regarding taking back America for a privileged group is a recipe for another debate far away from presidential campaign and exercise.

Presidential campaigns are expected to be uplifting; for, many observers expect them to be battle(s) of ideas, not prejudices. To keep the extremists at bay, Mitt Romney’s and the President’s campaign team must endeavor to be positive and intellectually stimulating in their campaign for the White House. Alongside distancing themselves from controversial and extreme groups, each party's flag bearer and their campaign teams must appreciate that this nation is greater than one party, one person or group. Presidential campaigning might include positioning yourself to win the election; however, this must not be done on the platter of bigotry; or, at the expense of civility and welfare of the nation. Most of all, to make one’s campaign for a national office credible, a political office seeker must endeavor to extend an umbrella of inclusiveness for all groups he is seeking to serve. A President is expected to pledge to defend all citizens of the nation, not attack any factional members of it. To continue to fall to the level of saying, I will, or we will like to, take our country from the opposition, is to portray an image of an outsider of the opposition; or synonymous to incivility in political discuss. Governor Romney response to President Obama's slip is unconscionable; and hardly appreciated by many Americans, Democrats and Republicans.

In other words, if Governor Mitt Romney wants himself to be considered a credible candidate or leader who is seeking the highest office in the land, he must make substantial investment in political ideology, resourceful arguments and comments that do not ostracize any group in the country. National Election's victory does not necessarily depend on huge political monetary contributions or attempting to classify others as outsider; rather, a candidate must endeavor to see himself as a unifier, a quality essential to successful leadership in a multicultural society. Campaigning for votes to special interest group(s) may impose a huge constraint or burden on a political candidate; however, at the stage of this country’s development, we would rather vote and celebrate an inclusive leader, one who is cautious of the makeup of the country, rather than defer to one, who sees anyone different from him or her as an outsider. We would rather accept transparent arguments based on facts; rather than a fiction of taking back our country from our present leader and President. Given the changing nature of America’s demography, we are certain that our future leaders will have to be dealing with issues and concerns of a multicultural society, not a monoculture one, as in the past.

Canvasing for votes from a multicultural demography in Presidential elections is evident and plausible in the coming decades; anyone seeking the office of the President therefore, must hardly see himself as a leader of one group as against another. The 2010 US Census has shown that the composition of this nation is titling away from a monoculture one; and any prospective leader must quit seeing this country in the context of a monoculture society. The past obsession of votes from just one segment of society is past long gone; and, probably would not be back very soon. Thus, when Mitt Romney subscribes to comments that indicate that he is hardly sensitive to the minority among us; then he is not ready to lead. If his ambition is to subscribe to clandestine faction or groups in his political party, then it is not impossible that many voters will declare that he does not possess the humbling and necessary qualities to lead a huge and diverse nation as ours.

Even, if your campaign team and manager are identifying with a strategy that portray you as hostile to other groups in the community you are attempting to serve, it is your duty to advise them that you will hardly stand for that position as you perceive your strategy as one of inclusiveness. Critics may argue that Obama's Administration is adhered too strongly to the Keynesian economic theory; however, what they will never say is that his administration is non-inclusive. President Obama's Administration has been inconclusive, even to groups which some of his supporters find abhorrent. In addition, President Obama's critics may not like how he has handled the American Economy, what they will never say is that, he is not a responsive leader. These are but two great reasons, why Republicans in many states will still vote for him, despite their reservation on how he has handled the economy. The most recent polling in the Wisconsin Governor's recall election bears this out: there are voters who voted for Scott Walker in the recall election, who will always vote for President Obama over Governor Mitt Romney!

There are so many potential obstacles to a candidate's victory in an election; bigotry must not be one. A progressive and reflective candidate would need to avoid controversies that could threaten or tarnish his authenticity. Mitt Romney must by now be wondering why some prominent conservative groups in his party are still not welcoming to his candidacy. It should have hit him that many voters, even within his party, still do not consider him as authentic. The relevant question here is why? Would these conservative Republicans, many in the Tea Party faction, want to roll back history; or, expect minorities to roll over like a fat dog, and get their tummies scratched or what? Buried in the hearts of some of these groups is the apprehension that Mitt Romney hardly seems to be authentic; just as they doubt the authenticity of the Republican flag bearer, so also they seek the abridgement of the right of minorities. For Governor Romney to subscribe to their position, is for him to cast himself in their like. This and other reasons are why many voters see Romney as unfit and probably a flip-flapper! Would this change? Would voters see him in other light? Answers to these and more questions are better found in Mitt Romney' actions an comments, henceforth. And as things stand regarding the campaign for the White House oval office, if he continues to make statements, that are considered as elitist, non-inclusive and probably racist, the more he can be sure, he will not have this people on his side come November, 2012.