Fire Barack Obama? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Unemployment is at 7.8 percent and dropping, still. If you're a college grad over age 25, your unemployment rate is under 5 percent. More than 5 million jobs have been created since the bottom of the Bush recession in June 2009. Osama bin Laden is dead and GM lives. Housing is up. Energy consumption is down. Oil production is up and oil imports are down. The stock market's back, as well, and 90 percent of us got tax cuts.
Women are guaranteed equal pay. "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't matter. Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be in 2014. And a giant step toward universal health care has been made. There's a debt reduction package on the table in Congress (to the tune of $4 trillion initially), a jobs bill, a veterans jobs bill and an infrastructure bill -- all stonewalled by Republicans who stated four years ago that their primary goal was to make Mr. Obama a one-term president.
Here's what I want to know: If the best Mitt Romney (and let's face it, the downstream Republicans in Senate and House races) can do is offer a plan that might "fix" the economy in eight to 10 years, a plan that by all credible accounts doesn't have any math or significant details to support its promise, then why fire the guy who's put us on a path to recovery in less than four years?
About the 47 percent: I wonder how many of this "non-taxpaying" group are newborns and small children, senior citizens who live from Social Security check to Social Security check, people with disabilities and people who are unemployed and living off their savings.
These categories of people represent life issues. To be truly pro-life, one must be concerned about all the life issues. The late Cardinal Bernardin articulated more than 45 life issues in his writings on a "Consistent Ethic of Life."
Catholics have been told by our bishops that we are not single-issue voters. We must weigh all the issues and choose the candidates who support, and will support, the greater number of these issues. I have done this. I am voting for Barack Obama because I am pro-life, in the real sense of the term.
SISTER MARY TRAUPMAN
Mitt's many faces
Thank you, Post-Gazette, for your objective and compelling endorsement for the re-election of President Barack Obama. You made a strong case for another four years, and I applaud your choice.
We have seen many faces of Mitt Romney, and we cannot know which one would be our leader. Going back to the Bush era would only push our recovery back.
What you failed to mention is what a Romney presidency would do for women. Inequalities in pay, more difficulty getting contraceptives and limiting a woman's right to choose cannot be ignored. Mr. Romney's ties to radical candidates such as Todd Akin of Missouri, Richard Mourdock of Indiana and his own vice presidential candidate tell us that all women should shudder if Mr. Romney is elected.
For security's sake
President Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 plan for Social Security has been and still is one of the best programs this country has ever created and must be preserved. Medicare and Medicaid also must be protected.
So why would any voter vote for Mitt Romney, who ultimately wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare and ruin our country like President George W. Bush did?
We must vote for President Barack Obama.
HOWARD R. HERRINGTON
Monday morning I was surprised to see a "Change It Back" sign in my neighborhood advocating Mitt Romney's election. While obviously a dig at President Barack Obama's "Change" motto in 2008, the author must be oblivious to how bad things were in 2008 after eight years of George W. Bush's disastrous policies.
Do we really want to go back to the unregulated banks that nearly destroyed our economy? To health insurance that could drop you if you get too sick, just when you need it most? To recent grads who can't afford insurance policies of their own or can't get them at all because of pre-existing conditions? To unnecessary wars premised on imaginary WMDs? To ignoring any scientific finding that disagrees with the president's ideology? To yet more tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to create jobs (although the jobs never materialized), but instead turned a government surplus into a deficit and sucked us into the Great Recession?
The 1 percent may prefer to "Change It Back," but for everyone else, the choice is clear: Mr. Obama.
Shortly after President Barack Obama took office, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell had the audacity to proudly declare that the Republican agenda for the next four years was to ensure that Mr. Obama failed. This obsession to make Mr. Obama a one-term president became the Republican mantra, regardless of the damage that it wrought upon the country.
And damage it did. Inheriting an economic disaster of historic proportions, Mr. Obama has attempted to rectify the situation but has been continually thwarted by the Republicans' efforts to deny him any political victories.
This callous disregard for the welfare of our nation was most recently evidenced by the Republicans' successful efforts to sabotage the veterans jobs corps bill, a bipartisan effort that would have gone a long way toward assisting our returning veterans. Congress' failure to pass a new farm bill to replace the one that expired Sept. 30 is just another example of Republicans holding the American public hostage in order to deny Mr. Obama any hint of success.
Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, today's congressional fiddlers are determined to ignore the fate of the country to appease their narcissistic political addiction. Any attempts by the voters to condone and abet this selfish behavior in the coming election can only be described as suicidal.
Recall GOP mess
Flabbergasted! Astounded! Astonished! There are absolutely no words in the English language to properly and fully describe my feelings on the fact that the polls have the presidential race in a virtual tie.
Putting aside the fact that Mitt Romney has changed positions more than the weather changes, let me get this right. President Barack Obama came into office after eight years in which the Republicans had taken our country to the financial brink of collapse and added trillions to the debt. Then, President Obama, with virtually no Republican help in Congress, managed to stop the bleeding. With the economy just starting to turn the corner, the Republicans now want the leadership of our country back because Mr. Obama hasn't cleaned up their mess fast enough! And half the country thinks this is OK. God help us.
Consider a crisis
I was really unnerved while watching the recent CBS television program on the Cuban missile crisis, with actual photos and recordings of the events that took place early in John F. Kennedy's term as president.
Satellite photos showed that Russian missiles had been delivered to Cuba. The president was alerted as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff who immediately considered action plans. Foremost was the idea of striking Cuba and taking out the missiles.
Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev railed against the prospect of our striking his ally. When our low-flying aircrafts' photos showed that the missiles had been loaded onto their launchers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and some members of JFK's Cabinet urged an immediate air strike.
Against this pressure, JFK used the "red phone" to speak directly to Krushchev, realizing that he was a sensible leader who loved his "Mother Russia." JFK stated that any Cuban attack on the United States would be considered a direct attack by the Soviet Union on us, with a swift retaliatory strike on Russia's cities. Almost immediately, the Cuban missiles were unloaded from their rocket launchers and soon were being returned to Russia.
We need a president who can override overwhelming pressure from within, even by the Joint Chief of Staffs, to choose what is in the best interest of this country. Whom would you choose to be president in such a crisis: President Barack Obama or Gov. Mitt Romney?
Tea Party politics
If you think the Tea Party is the only thing saving American society, then you must vote Republican. If you think retired people, women and minorities are doing just fine, then you must vote Republican. If you want things the way they used to be, then you must vote Republican.