“America Doesn’t Want To Vote For a Loser” [Right and Left]

“The American people do not want to vote for a loser. They don’t want to vote for someone who hasn’t been successful. I think Mitt Romney has a chance to show the American people that they, too, can succeed.”
House Speaker John Boehner Speaking to “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”

There we have it ladies and gentlemen. The very crux of President Obama’s argument for why he deserves a second term. It is sexy, has teeth and is the reason why the Republican Party has not had a new idea since the 80’s. John Boehner didn’t realize what he let slip but it will be interesting to see if anyone picks up on it. Very simply, the Speaker of the House thinks the President is a loser.

There has always been a level of elitism in the Republican party and it is completely different from the type of elitism that infects the Democratic Party. The Democrats suffer from being so sure that everything they say is right and everything you say is wrong that when you disagree with them the only people you could be are George Bush, Adolf Hitler or Napoleon (or any other type of bloodthirsty lunatic the Democrats will compare you to if you happen to disagree with anything they say).

No The Republican Party elitism is based on the idea that there are two types of people in this world, winners and losers. The statement that John Boehner made was in support of Mitt Romney, a man who was born to the Governor of Massachusetts, sent to the most exclusive private schools, followed by Harvard (America’s most exclusive school) and then he used his family money to become the head of a private equity fund that specialized in preying on weak companies and exploiting them for financial gain. To Boehner this is the definition of winner.

I would posit the argument that it would have next to impossible for Romney to fail. He had every single tool in the world to ensure his success. So did George W. Bush. Do did George H.W. Bush. They all came from vast family fortunes, used family political connections to attain political office and were given the opportunity, again by family, to try their hand in any industry they wanted.

This is not what America should be looking up to as a winner. I am not even saying that these men did not make good presidents. Regardless of what the public thought of them at the time they were responsible for some good policies and some bad. The Bush boys lead us successfully through two wars. But when you contrast them to the two most recent Democratic Presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama you see two children who came from very humble beginnings, raised in broken homes, got themselves through college and worked their way up the political ladder through hard work and fighting for the little guy (which incidentally I would point out is very similar to Boehner’s story too). You would think that they would be considered winners also.

But they are not, they are considered the losers. I would venture to say the reason that people like Boehner and Romney consider themselves winners and why they consider Clinton and Obama losers? Because even after they made their own money, and achieved their goals of the highest office in the land and their own vast fortunes they continued to do something that the Republican Party finds abhorrent…they continued to promote policies that benefit the little guy, even to their own detriment.

This bucks the entire idea of capitalism. The idea that people are only motivated by self interest. When Obama says he wants to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year in order to pay for healthcare, or veterans or retirees, don’t you think he knows that that mean his taxes will go up too? That when he promotes socialized medicine that he might have to chip in more of his tax money to ensure that everyone gets the medical treatment they deserve not just those with the means to pay for it?

Romney is running on a platform of two major philosophies.

1. The richer you make the rich the better it is for America because their richness will trickle down to everyone else (it is sad for me to even write that it is an accepted political philosophy to say the more food on my table the more scraps that will fall on the floor for you)

2. The more power you give to corporations the better it will be for all (because after all, if Wal-Mart makes more money there are thousands more minimum wage jobs for all)

Seems a little suspicious that multimillionaires who made their fortunes in the corporate world would only be fighting for corporations and other multimillionaires and claim that we should support them because they are the keepers of freedom while the others want to take our freedoms away.

Because remember America, supporting socialized medicine, raising taxes to make sure our government doesn’t go completely broke, asking corporations who pay so little tax revenue to our own government while hiring more overseas than here doesn’t just mean that you are against Freedom.

Now it means you are a Loser too.

Left and Right is a three times weekly column by Inquistr writer H. Scott English examining the hottest political issues of the day, the candidates running for public office and the 2012 elections.