Carefully consider Romney’s judgment
Thanks to the Index-Tribune for publishing the words of Kate Scherz in your Valley Forum feature (“Adding insult to injury,” Oct. 9). Because of her experience in the Foreign Service, I think we need to pay special attention to her perspective.
We are, as a nation, getting a little better at expressing our gratitude to members of the military, but we are less good at recognizing the contributions of those Americans involved in diplomatic efforts on our behalf.
In many countries, these foreign service officers are the face of our nation abroad. Their work is often dangerous and almost always unknown by those of us at home, but they are chosen because of their skills and judgment in difficult situations.
Scherz’s comments should make us consider Mitt Romney’s judgment, an issue of utmost importance in the upcoming election.
When Scherz points out that Romney, in his too-quick attack on the State Department, was not “constrained by considerations of what might be in the best interest of the people under attack,” she calls attention to the fact that he attempted to seize an immediate political opportunity despite tremendous uncertainty “on the ground” in Libya. She further points out that his comments, that 47 percent of Americans are parasitic victims, are highly offensive – again, poor judgment.
So those are two very obvious strikes – but is there a third, fourth, and fifth?
Perhaps we should look at his performance in the last debate, an event that he is universally considered to have “won.”
Do you best your opponent when you suddenly and without warning change your position on exceptionally important issues?
He has repeatedly called for the complete dismantling of Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street reform and consumer protection law, yet in the debate said he thought parts of it were worth keeping. He has called for total repeal of the new healthcare law, saying overturning it would be the first thing he’d do if elected. But on the night of the debate, he said he believed that there were parts he liked and would let stand.
Romney said he wants to keep the Obamacare feature that forces insurance companies to provide care to those with pre-existing conditions, but he neglected to mention that his plan only allows those with no break in service to be covered, effectively gutting the provision. He claimed that his “voucherizing” of Medicare is really something we don’t need to be concerned about, even though privatization will eliminate most federal oversight and give great leeway to insurance companies.
He also claimed during the debate that “50 percent” of the green energy companies getting grants and loans from the current administration had gone bankrupt, when in fact only 3 of 26 had.
This is a man who will seize any opportunity to advance his political fortunes, no matter whether the truth is served or not.
We should thank Kate Scherz for her service to the country and for the informed opinion she has shared.
• • •
Bernie Fleming is a resident of Sonoma.