The Christmas Requiem

 

I never knew Vicki Soto (and I do understand that other adults were killed on Friday as well, two of whom were the same age as Vicki…any one of them could be the subject of this piece and in fact, it hasn’t escaped my attention that perhaps the best role model for those who lost their lives was none other than principal Dawn Hochsprung, who set a very brave example herself and enjoys nothing but my highest posthumous laud; I’m picking Vicki because she reminds me most of myself and those my own age).  While Vicki was, no doubt, one in a million, I feel as if I knew dozens of women just like her.  Saturday night, just like I’ve done every other Saturday night since graduating college, I hit up a local bar, with lots of my friends and struck up 5-10 random conversations with women my age.  Vicki Soto could’ve been any of them.  She could’ve been any of the women I’ve met doing charity work, or at any of the various social functions I attend in the course of a month.  They’re all really special and unique people who have their own special gift to give to the world we live in.  Although it was a few days premature, Vicki Soto and a few of her colleagues gave the world a great Christmas present to open, this season.

Friday morning, Vicki did the same thing just about every other Millennial did that same day.  She got up out of bed, probably still tired from Thursday night- there’s never enough sleep around the holidays.  She probably hit the snooze button once or twice, and then dragged herself to get dressed for work.  She was likely relieved that a long week was almost over.  Thinking about which holiday sweater party she might attend in the days to come, what to wear, which holiday cookies and desserts to bake, what to get her siblings for Christmas.  How to make one of the final Fridays before vacation memorable for her kids- ironically, she would indeed accomplish this, though not in any way she could have possibly imagined or prepared herself for. 

Maybe she had a big breakfast; maybe she’s like me and doesn’t eat much for breakfast.  Maybe she was late and didn’t have time to.  I’m told she lived with her parents- not uncommon among Millennials either.  For some it’s a money thing:  some can’t afford to live independently; others just don’t see a whole lot of sense in wasting rent money on an apartment that could go toward paying bills or debts, or just saved for some time down the road when the money might actually be needed.  For other Millennials- and for what it’s worth, I think most who live with their parents are this way- it’s that they don’t want to get a roommate, but don’t want to live alone.  They’re too involved in their careers and social lives to settle down and get married, but the whole Friends thing just isn’t for them.  Whatever Vicki’s reason, I’m guessing she spent between 45 minutes and 2 hours between the time her alarm went off and the time she left for work at her parents’ house, with her parents and maybe a sibling or two, all hustling to get off to a career that was probably one of the most important things in her life:  something she’d probably worked toward since a time when she wasn’t much older than the children she taught. 

It seems all of us her age are committed to our careers and social lives- it’s what makes us who we are.  Millennials want to be able to say that what they do for a living has meaning.  That our careers aren’t some vain vehicle for paying the bills.  Vicki Soto wanted to make a difference in the lives of America’s youth- and she would.

Whether it was 45 minutes or 2 hours, I’m certain Vicki spent a decent portion of it rushing around, thinking but a few of the million thoughts that race through the mind of any 27 year old every morning. “What am I going to do this weekend?  I’m late again!  Is this the right job for me?  How long should I stay at it?  Should I do something else?  Why am I still single?  What’s for dinner?  What am I going to wear, today?  Do my shoes match this outfit?  I love this shirt, but I hate having to get it pressed!  This one’s starting to fray around the collar. Can I squeeze another month out of it, until I can afford a new one?”  And when that 45 minutes to 2 hours was up, whether she bid each of her family members goodbye with a warm embrace, a passing verbal exchange, or perhaps, in her rush, didn’t have time but knowing they all loved each other and said and did nothing, drove off to the job that had become such an integral part of her life- out of her family’s lives forever.

The only sin she committed was being exactly like all the rest of us- going to work to do a job she loved.  I’d like to think that if my job required me to sacrifice my life, that I’d do as Vicki did.  I pray to God I never get the chance. 

When people die young, it’s one of the hardest things to comprehend.  I like to think of each person’s life as a book, replete with exciting pages and chapters.  Vicki’s “book” feels like it stops reading, mid sentence, and has only blank pages following.  Vicki could’ve taught 30 more classes just like the one she had this year.  Instead, those 30 classes will have to make do with some permanent sub.  She’s just like a girl that I, or any one of my friends might’ve gone on a date with or at the very least been friends with, and when the fit was right, married.  Instead, somewhere, today, a guy who might’ve met her at school or church, a charity event, or maybe even a bar, will have to find another girl to marry, because the one he would’ve married isn’t here- he probably never even got the pleasure of meeting her.  Children who could’ve followed in their mother’s footsteps and illuminated our world never will- in fact, the world will never know them.  How many weddings in the years to come are missing a bridesmaid or maid of honor?  How many Christmases and birthdays are forever ruined by a hole that’ll never be filled?  Whatever will become of Christmas gifts and tidings Vicki had intended to give to family and friends, that never will be, or of those tidings and gifts intended for her, that are never to be received? 

This giving season, Vicki gave the world in which she lived some of the greatest gifts of all.  She gave her classroom her love for them.  She gave them their lives.  She gave them the chance to see, first hand, what sacrifice means.  How society’s interests are more important than those of its individual members, yet at the same time, how one member of society can be so vital to its existence or decadence- indeed she was only one member, as was Adam Lanza.  She gave these children the chance to become doctors and lawyers, and software programmers, and even teachers; the chance to have families and be husbands, brothers, sisters, mothers.  She gave them generations of Christmas joy in return for a lifetime of her own.  She gave these people to America, and in doing so, showed America what love and care for others can do, even in the face of evil.  In fact she showed us why good always beats evil.  Adam Lanza’s spirit won’t live, nor will Eric Harris’s.  Their names will be remembered but their personalities long forgotten.  The Vicki Sotos and Rachel Scotts of the world are dead, but their spirits can’t be killed.  Bullets and guns can’t kill the memory of the time that one of their victims helped a member of society.  They can’t kill an act of kindness, or the feeling someone who knew that person gets when thinking about him or her.  They can’t give amnesia to survivors. 

Vicki reminded the world of this, as she taught it to her class on Friday.  They’ll spent 15-20 more years in school- they’ll study Spanish, Calculus, and Organic Chemistry; they’ll pull all nighters popping Adderall cramming to get their next A, and perhaps never again learn such an important or difficult lesson as they did Friday morning.  It was the last thing Vicki Soto ever did.  27 years of work, for one moment of love, that will inspire generations.  Those who knew and loved Vicki Soto will have children and grandchildren of their own.  Some will bear her name.  When they smile, the world will see Vicki smiling; they’ll weave silky prose into eloquent speech, and the world will once again hear Vicki’s voice.  One sweet day some warm, bright May morning, when one of these students, or one of their children or grandchildren does something magnificent- graduates medical school, or becomes an elected official, or a teacher, or does any number of the great things Americans do each and every day- the world will see Vicki Soto again, and know that she never really left us; that she’d been here, with us, all along.  Today’s tears of sadness will be tomorrow’s tears of joy.

As I stated in the introduction, unique as Vicki was, she’s just like everyone else her age.  We’re all capable of giving to the world the gifts God has given us, for we are His gifts to the world; and we’re all capable of noticing and appreciating those gifts that others have been given, for they’re His gifts to each of us.  Would that this holiday season, we remember Vicki and everyone else who died Friday, just as they’d lived- by trying just a little bit harder to see God in our brethren and sistren, and make them see Him in us, that we might all best relish each Christmas season. 

 

First Debate Thoughts

First and foremost I do think it was a close debate, but Romney won.  CNN's poll says 67% of the public thought Romney had the better night- doesn't mean the debate wasn't close.  100 people watch a 4 point football game, and you ask them afterwards, which was the better team, and some will indeed think that the better team lost, but most will say that the team winning by 4 was better.  But that doesn't mean it wasn't a close game, and think the same thing applied to tonight's debate.  If it'd been a boxing match, it would've been a split decision, or maybe a unanimous one with one or two of the judges scoring the bout very close.  But by no means a KO or TKO.  In fact, a CBS poll gave it to Romney, 46-22-32, and a real time Google poll had Obama winning.  Point being, Romney did win, but by no means was it a blowout.

Another point worth making is that most of the debate polls were taken of undecided voters, many of whom may have been looking for literally any reason in the world to vote for Romney- and many of whom, likely would've voted for him on election day, anyway.  In this respect, many of them were already predisposed to like Romney. 

I thought each candidate did a pretty good job of laying out what he would do as president.  And I thought there were points where Obama beat Romney, hands down, and vice versa.  Romney simply had more of these moments than Obama did.  I also think Romney benefited a little bit from the gain-loss effect, in which the public's opinion heading into the debate was that Obama would win.  Thus, any time Romney looked Presidential, I think that in the minds of a lot of people watching who were unfamiliar with him, he got a little "extra credit"- but that is, indeed, a one trick pony, to whatever extent Romney benefited. 

Also, first debates, in general seem to favor the challenger.  I think there are more than a few reasons why this is the case.  The first is, as many observed, 'rust'.  Obama hadn't debated in 4 years, and it showed.  Romney's spent the last year being attacked from all sides on everything, and knows by now how to fend off an attack or two.  Other reasons include the fact that Obama, in order to win, needs to run on his record; Mitt, as is the case with most challengers, either has no record, or a record so obscure or distant in people's memory, that he can say or be whatever he wants.  Which Mitt shows up for the debate- centrist Massachusetts governor Mitt, or plutocrat puppet Mitt...or maybe it's the pander to born again Christians Mitt?  No one knows until he actually starts debating.  This makes preparation a little difficult.  Mitt meanwhile, knows exactly who he'll be debating, and exactly how Obama will answer just about every question.  This is an advantage Mitt won't have for the remaining debates:  people will remember the centrist Massachusetts governor who showed up for tonight's debate, and if he's noticably absent from the remaining debates, they likely won't give him the nod, come November.  If, as is more likely, the same guy shows up for the next debate that showed up for this one, Obama will now be able to 'peg' him, where he previously could not. Simply, Obama isn't the first, and likely won't be the last president to suffer from a lack of aggression in the first debate as an incumbent. 

It'll be interesting to see how, if at all, the debates affect the polls.  One thing I noticed was that, during the debates, a group of undecided swing voters in Colorado were having responses measured.  It didn't escape my attention that the gender gap was still very much present.  Going into the debates, Obama had up to 50% in several swing state polls- enough to give him an Electoral majority.  The problem that this poses for Romney is that, if the polls are true- and in the weeks leading up to an election, polls have a way of reverting to the eventual electoral percentages, especially when averaged, unless Romney can get some voters to reconsider, all the gap closing in the world won't matter:  he can't beat Obama 51%-50%; the first guy to 50% usually wins.  This means that even with a "bad" debate performance, if Obama can simply reassure his base that he'll keep his promises if re-elected, all that he really needs to do in any debate is avoid the knockout. 

It's also worth pointing out that debates don't really move the polls that much.  Most people don't watch them, and most of the ones who do already have their minds made up.  The Kennedy-Nixon debate is well documented as an example where a candidate used the debate to win the presidency, but there were 4 of them, and Nixon won: 2-1-1.  He lost the election because he ran a horrible campaign down the stretch, campaigning literally everywhere, while Kennedy catered to his base voters, and areas likely to give him lots of votes, and in states that would ultimately matter.  He also made good use of surrogates like LBJ and Richard Daley.  Nixon foolishly treated every state and every voter as equal.  In 1980, Reagan was already leading Carter, who was unpopular and leading a badly fractured Democratic party.  The debate was more of a requiem for Carter than a swan song.  It can be argued that George Bush lost as few as 4 and as many as all of his 6 debates with Kerry and Gore...it didn't matter, and most people think his father lost 2 of the 3 against Dukakis.  I'm not saying it won't matter this time around, but past is prologue, and Mitt still has a women voter problem, as was evidenced by the response measurements, and he'll still need to explain to Ohio voters why the bailout was such a boondoggle, and he'll still need to close the, by some estimates, 5-1 early voter gap in Iowa.  Or else, all the changing in the world- unlikely is it would be- won't matter either.

Mitt's other problem is the Etch a Sketch thing.  Nearly every commentator who thought that he won also pointed out that he all but abandoned the tax, education, and health care platforms that he'd been running on for the past year.  Obama lost the debate becuase, while he pointed this out, he didn't clobber Mitt with it- and if Obama goes 4 more weeks without telling this to voters, he'll lose, and more importantly, he'll  deserve it.  But I don't think he's that stupid or that incompetant.  He got Mitt to do two things tonight, in winning, that Obama can use against him later:  He got Mitt to double down on running away from what he'd previously said on each of these issues; then he got Mitt to deny that he ever said otherwise.  This is an easy fact check, and all Obama really needs to do is run an ad of Mitt talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

Obama's spent the better part  of the last year painting Romney as a guy who is a puppet for rich  plutocrats, and who'll say literally whatever it takes to get elected.  If I were Obama, I'd use tonight's debate and employ a rope-a-dope.  Mitt literally spent two hours tonight out debating Obama, but in doing so, possibly out debating himself.  He wants voters to gut Obamacare, and support the plan he employed in Massachusetts:  unfortunately, he's forgetting the part where they're the exact same plan.  Obama needs to ask Mitt to explain why, if Obamacare's so bad, he'd essentially replace it with its own clone.

On education, Mitt wants to do what Massachusetts did- under Deval Patrick. And again, he failed to mention that it's what Obama is already doing. And he supported this plan in tonight's debate, while simultaneously advocating the voucher program which was in direct contrast to what Patrick did. He simply can't have it both ways.

Either Obama was a failure because he attempted, on a national level, what Mitt did for Massachusetts, and it didn't work, and now America should hire Mitt because they think he'd do a lesser job of mismanaging; or America should hire Mitt Romney because they think he'd do a better job of doing what Obama's already succeeded at doing. If Mitt can sell that, he'll make a damn good President.

Finally, there is simply not enough math in the world to explain how cutting taxes for the rich doesn't increase the deficit- unless he wants to raise taxes for the poor and middle class, as he'd previously advocated, or cut Social Security.  Now he's saying he'll cut taxes for everyone, but somehow thinks the deficit will magically take care of itself; yet, when pressed about which programs he'd cut, he's repeatedly demurred. 

Obama needs to reiterate Clinton on this.  The American people can have any two of these three options:  1.  cutting the deficit; 2.  Bush tax cuts for the rich or the poor and middle class; or 3.  Medicare and Social Security cuts.  But they can't have all three.  The math just doesn't add up.  In fact, Obama needs to point out that this is exactly what America tried under Bush, and it blew the deficit to a record high- so bad, in fact, that Obama has cut it each of the 4 years he's been in office, and will likely cut it again in 2013, and still has run up a bigger deficit than all of the previous Presidents, combined. 

What this means, is that Mitt is either a)  incompetent; b) lying; or c) so great of a politician that he can out-Bush George W. Bush, while simultaneously out-Obama-ing Barack Obama.  Obama needs to point this out to the public.  If they think c, then Romney's their man; if it's a, then Obama's likely the winner going away.  But if most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle, they need to ask Romney which of the three items above he'd cut.  He's lambasted the deficit, and getting rid of the Bush cuts for the rich is a non starter.  This really only leaves two options:  raise taxes on the poor and middle class, or cut Medicare and Social Security.  In the debate, Mitt said he'd keep taxes where they're at, and maybe even cut them.  His vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, has, on multiple occasions, advocated privatizing Medicare and Social Security.  So, Mitt has a little explaining to do, there.  And if he really wants to take the privatization route, then Obama needs to point out that if we'd have done that, in 2005, like Bush had wanted, when the market lost half its value in 2008, our seniors would've gone broke.  That's the point Obama needs to make:  that Mitt would have America put Granny in the poor house so that a handful of millionaires can save a nickel on every dollar that their Apple stock went up. 

If Obama can make these points over the next 4 weeks, he'll keep his job.  If he can't explain to America why he should keep his job, the same thing will happen to him that happens to anyone else who can't explain why they should keep their job.  In other words, regardless of how bad last night was for him, it's still his race to lose.

The Unemployment Thing

Here's why unemployment's still high- and why it'll be difficult for anyone to do anything about it.

1.  Houses.  It's finally turning the corner, but it'll still be a few more years before this market recovers.  The industry is simply still underneath too many bad debt rocks. 

2.  Technology.  Companies have figured out how to do more with less.  GDP, both overall and per capita is at an all time high.  In other words, the macro economy, as Obama has said, is "fine".  Actually, except for the 1990s, unemployment, over the last 40 years has AVERAGED 7%.  So, much as I hate the "new normal" cliche, unemployment in the 4s and 5s may be optimal, at best.  Average for good economic times, for most of our lifetimes has been unemployment rates in the 6s; bad times, in the 7s.  From 1974 to 1994 unemployment was under 6% for a total of a mere 24 months.  It would help people who lament thee current rates to know these grim facts. 

3.  "Hard money".  Banks have taken a "once bitten twice shy" approach to lending.  After making money ridiculously easy to get, circa 2003, it's now equally as impossible.  Businesses that rely on credit are still struggling because of this. 

4.  States are broke.  It's estimated that unemployment, right now, would be between 6.9% and 7.3% but for layoffs in state government jobs, and perhaps, if the cumulative effect of this were considered, much lower- perhaps as low as 6.5%.  Some of this is overreaction to Obama's election in conservative parts of the country, and part of it is overreaction to macroeconomic irresponsibility.  Americans are angry, and austerity seems a silver bullet.  Most of it, though, is necessity.  Unlike the Fed, states cannot print money, and carry trade deficits.  Some states even require balanced budgets, prohibiting deficits, altogether.  Good idea when money is abundant; BAD IDEA when it's scarce.  You don't borrow money when you don't need it.  Further, in recent years, the housing boom caused many states to shift nearly all of their revenue bases to housing.  Moreover, because many states did not anticipate the housing bust, and figured budgets years in advance, this caused a massive overbudgeting.  The good news is that many states are now solvent.  The bad news is that this solvency came at a very steep price not only for the states, but for their citizens, as well.

Why Obama Isn't Losing

I've had several of my conservative colleagues in recent weeks ponder why Obama isn't by now buried.  Allow my retort.

1.   Many of the conservative arguments against him are terribly disingenuous- and the public isn't stupid.  The best example of this I can give are three common conservative canards:
   a)  Gas Prices.  First of all, many of the conservatives who complain about this were just fine with $4.00/gal. gas under George W. Bush.  It never bothered them then.  They'll even go so far as to evaluate Obama's performance on this by citing $1.50 gas when he took office.  Most people will realize that the low gas prices in the winter of '09 were temporary, and that they were $4.00 the previous summer.  Gas under Obama, compared to what it had been in recent years, has, mostly been steady.  The argument also presupposes that high gas is indicative of a recession.  The problem with this is that it isn't 1977, anymore.  High gas can be just as prevalent in a boom as it can be during harder times.  Also, it's highly dependent on things completely out of our control- weather, natural disasters, global demand, and global politics.  All of these things affect gas many times more than domestic policy.  Which brings me to my next point, which is that Obama's drilled more oil than any president in nearly 40 years.  He's also increased alternative energy production to the point where the US is now the world's leader.  Further, our dependence on foreign oil has DECREASED.  Why, then is gas higher?  Well, actually, it isn't.  When you adjust it for inflation, it's been about the same the last 5 or 6 years.  Over 30 years, the average over the last 6 years has exceeded the trendline by about $0.20, or roughly 6%.  In other words, high gas prices aren't crippling the economy because we're not as dependent on them as we used to be, they're just as high in a recession as they are normally, and they're not really that high. 
   b)  Taxes.  This argument is just a lie.  Taxes are the lowest they've been since 1958.
   c)  The debt has tripled.  So...he inherited a debt of $11T, and it's currently at $15T, and 11*3=....I don't understand this one at all.  Yes, the debt is higher.  But no matter who was elected president, the nearly $1T stimulus was going to pass.  And Obama has very little control over "entitlement" spending; and the Bush tax cuts; and several other budget items.  In other words, this number was going up if an automaton had been elected president.  This spending was "baked into the cake".  Conservatives have it backwards.  The deficit didn't cause the Recession.  The Recession caused the deficit.  One reason it's increased is because the loss of jobs and the depleted housing market has decimated the revenue base.  The expenses, as I indicated above have been the same, but the revenue has decreased.  Cutting spending isn't going to bring in more revenue.  Which brings me to...
   d)  Jobs.  Obama inherited an economy that was shedding 600,000 jobs a month...and dropping.  Within 3 months of taking office, it peaked at 800,000, and began turning back.  Within 14 months of tkaing office, the economy was adding jobs.  It would take nearly 12 more months of job growth before it would make a dent in the rising unemployment rate.  Since then, it's nickeled and dimed, but it's down nearly 2 percentage points from its high of 10.4%.  Continuing at the current pace, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect unemployment in the low 7s by this time next year.  I've used this analogy before, but to understand Obama's task on unemployment, imagine him taking control of a car going 100 mph in the wrong direction, and accelerating.  He takes over the car, but it still accelerates a little bit before he's able to slow it down.  He throttles, but the car still rides a feww hundred yards before coming to a stop.  He stops it, and turns it around, but he can't get it to go as fast in the opposite direction.  But it is accelerating back in the right direction, it's just not yet back to the point where he took over yet.  Most Americans get this.  If Romney can sell them on the idea that he can make the car go faster, he'll win.  But so far, instead, what he's proposed, is that we turn the car back around, and floor it, in the wrong direction, again.

2.  Conservatives still don't get it about Bush.  Most Americans don't like him.  If Romney comes within a mile of Bush, policywise, it'll turn most Americans off.

3.  Most Americans actually like Obama, and give him good marks on areas other than the economy.  Think about this for a second.  Imagine, Obama fights Romney to a draw or even a closee loss on the economy.  Sure, it's the most important issue, but if Romney's only marginally better, if better at all, but Americans judge Obama to be better on nearly every other issue, who'll they vote for?  Americans have accepted that there isn't a quick fix to the Recession.  It isn't low taxes and low regs, and it isn't high gov't spending.  America spent 10-15 years digging itself into this hole.  Wages had stagnated for decades.  We were able to mask it with two income families, and credit, and later the tech boom and housing boom.  Personal debt in 2007 was the highest since the Depression.  Personal savings was at its lowest since the early 1980s.  Digging out of this mess in 2-4 years is a little unreasonable, no?  It'd be great to think we can, but the world doesn't work like that.  We can't undo a decade plus of poor decisions in a couple of years.

The race is still way up in the air.  It's only August, and the conventions and debates and national and world events over the next 80 days will play a bigger role in determining November's election than current polls and economic data.  That said, regardless, the election looks to be close.  And for Republicans lamenting the "disastrous" Obama presidency, and pondering why this may be the case, pondering why he's leading and favored to win, at least for now, it might help for them to take a long hard look at reality.  At Obama and who he REALLY is...and isn't.  And similarly at Romney.  And, lastly, at themselves.

The Dilemma

Now that Rick Santorum has finally accepted the reality that he'll not only never be President, but also never be his party's nominee, I'm positing my prediction for the 2012 election. 

First of all, if we go to war, if the economy relapses, or if there is some other catastrophe or crisis, all bets are off.  Barring that- assuming that the status quo, more or less, maintains between now and November (I understand it's a big "if"), but it is the most likely bet, even if its chances are only in the 60-80% range- barring that, Obama will be re-elected, and comfortably so, if not in a landslide.  Here's why:

1.  The American people like Obama.  They may disapprove of certain aspects of his job, or the manner in which he does it entirely, but he's well liked, and always has been.  And, even though his approval ratings haven't been impressive, they haven't really been anything to scoff at, either.  They've been in the low 40s to low 50s most of the time- and in that same period, he's been the highest rated national politician.  It's safe to say, that while he hasn't been the most popular guy, he hasn't been detested either.

2.  The people don't like Romney.  His approvals are low, and his disapprovals are through the roof, and rising- especially in swing states. It's also worth pointing out, that the more money he's spent in a particular state's primary, even though he may have eventually been able to win that state's primary, in nearly every instance, his overall disapproval has increased.  And it isn't like Obama has to run attack ads.  Thanks to the kind words of Mitt's primary contenders, the GOP has given him all the ammunition he needs, and since it'll have come straight from the mouths of such conservative icons as Newt Gingrich, moderates and independents will believe it.  With friends such as those, who really needs enemies?

3.  He's a flip flopper.  This one's really self explanatory.  Add to this his disingenuous personality and complete dearth of common touch, and it really makes some Americans question who Romney is.  Personally, I think he's a guy who has a pretty good handle on contemporary problems and how to solve them.  But he can't sell his solutions to the people, so he tells them one thing and does something else.  I don't mind it.  Too many Americans do.

4.  What I'll call Romney's Dilemma.  It goes something like this.  George Bush left office with what amounts to a no confidence vote from the people.  Even now, they blame him and his policies for whatever mess America may be in.  Republicans will retort that he's been out 4 years and isn't on any ballot in 2012.  The problem is that the policies that the conservatives would have Romney support are identical to and in some cases continuations of ones Bush implemented.  In short, a vote for Romney would be a vote to return to the Bush years.  But what if Romney bucks the GOP and turns out to be the moderate many conservatives suspect him to be?  Well, the problem with this is that it carries the tacit admission that Obama wasn't a failure after all. 

Conservatives love to quote Reagan.  Too often, lately, they completely misunderstand him.  They quote his "Are you better off..." line from the debate with Carter, and are convinced that Romney can beat Obama by employing similar rhetoric.  Allow me to distinguish.  First of all, while many conservatives like to think Obama weak, most Americans don't.  He's been a strong leader- and Reagan was a strong leader.  That couldn't be said of Carter, and Romney's disingenue leaves doubt.  Also, Reagan was advocating something new; something that had yet to be tried.  He said, "Well, if you think Carter's failed, let's try it my way.  What could it hurt?"  Romney doesn't do that.  He critiques, but offers no solution of substance.  Instead, he says, "Let's pretend the last 5 years didn't happen."  With Reagan, America was lost in the woods, and Carter had yet to lead them out, so Reagan suggested taking a different path.  Romney wants America to simply retrace its steps back to the point it realized it was lost.  That isn't leadership.  That's fear. 

Unless, of course, Romney critiques Obama, on one hand, and on the other, suggests continuing along the path Obama's paved.  In which case, many will say "If you'd have done the same thing, or could do no better, why switch?"  Another way of saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."

Now, if something dramatic happens, Romney will be able to play on voters' anxiety the same way Clinton did against GHW Bush.  Of course, if the Dow Jones is trading in the high 13,000s or better, and unemployment drops below 8%, and gas gets back below $3.25, Obama wins regardless.  But absent that, Romney can't simply give reasons not to vote for Obama.  That's like the guy who sits at home on a Sunday and yells at his QB for throwing an INT.  After about the fifth time that the guy says "I could do better that that," it occurs to retort, "Then why don't you?"  Republicans have yet to really establish that any fundamental policy difference between them and Obama on a different issue would've yielded substantially better results.

Romney has to give America some compelling reason why America should give him a chance; some alternate course of action.  It can't simply be reasons not to vote for Obama; it has to be more.  And abaove all, he has to sell it.  America already has buyer's remorse from Bush.  Re-wrapping those policies won't fool anyone.  Re-branding Obama's policies might work- and if Obama lets that happen, he'll deserve to lose- but he's too good for that.

Which leaves Romney in a bit of a spot:  Return to the Bush policies America still loathes; or stay the course- which means keeping Obama.  It's Heads Obama wins; Tails Romney loses.