In the previous elections Barak Hussain Obama had won with a landslide.
While some attribute it to his "charisma", and still others to the colour of his skin, the real cause of his landslide victory were the policies of the George Bush administration and Obama's promises to change these policies.
And the proof that it was the Bush policies (rather than Obama's charisma or the colour of his skin) that had caused the Obama landslide victory is that while Obama has not lost his charisma, nor has changed the colour of his skin, his popularity has disappeared. And it has disappeared because many see his policies either not different than those of the Bush administration, or not better than those of the Bush administration. And today Obama is even less popular than George Bush at the end of his presidency.
Does the unpopularity of Obama mean that Mitt Romney can win with a landslide?
But what are Mitt Romney policies?
A reheated dish of the George Bush years - "The American Century" with a foreword by Elliot Cohen.
But the policies of the George Bush years had been rejected by the American voters who voted for Obama. They do not want Obama, because he is a "third term Bush", but will they want a Mitt Romney who will be a "fourth term super-Bush"? Many might even vote for Obama, not because they want Obama, but because they do not want Mitt Romney.
So, how can Mitt Romney get elected with a landslide?
Here follows the Mitt Romney Landslide Victory Speech:
Some 5 years ago you had elected Barak Hussain Obama who promised you "Change", but he has not changed much.
But why did you want "change"? And what should have Obama changed?
At the start of this century an event took place which a British Intelligence chief described as "qualitatively not different for an IRA terrorist bombing" - a bigger blast than an Irish pub bombing in Britain, but otherwise just another terrorist act with which the British intelligence services had much experience due to their imperial past. Not the kind of thing that the British would see as a reason for a full scale war against the Republic of Ireland.
This is how a British Intelligence chief saw the 9/11 events. And had the US government of the time had similar view, they would have dealt with the consequences of this act as just another large-scale police operation. But the US government of the time chose to make this event a reason for declaring a global War-on-Terror, and starting wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Neither of the wars were necessary and both were justified by false arguments. Nor have these wars yielded any benefits for you, the people of America, but have caused twice more Americans deaths than the 9/11. And the cost of these wars to you are trillions of dollars with nothing to show for except debt and recession.
These wars, and the attempts to justify them by false arguments, have discredited America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and they have discredited the American government even in your own eyes.
And it is these policies of the George Bush administration that you wanted to change by electing Obama.
But, as you know, Obama has not changed much. And the result is that, if in the 20th century America was a source of global leadership, today America is seen as a source of global lawlessness, chaos and misgovernment.
Can Obama be trusted to change it all in his second term?
This is how I shall change the present course when elected:
Both George Bush and Barak Obama supported the War-on-Terror to show how tough they are.
But attacking smaller countries without a good reason, or throwing missiles around the world is not "toughness", it is weakness and insecurity. Bullies attack weaker people not because they are tough, but because they are week and insecure.
America is a strong powerful country. It does not need to be a global bully to show the world how strong it is.
There was no need to invent the ideology of War-on-Terror. If anybody attacks American citizens or American property, we shall deal with it as a crime. And, if any country attacks America, it will be an act of war and we shall respond as needed. But we shall not continue to chase the Specter of Global Terrorism - we do not need this paranoia.
The Middle East Conflict has cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, and it continues to be the major source of global violence and instability.
The Democrats had tried to solve it in the 1980's - the so-called "peace process". And even Barak Obama promised to solve it when campaigning for his first term elections. They all failed.
They failed, because they have failed to understand the real causes of that conflict and were taking political postures and stances which could not solve anything.
My administration will go to the roots of this conflict, and resolve it on the basis of justice.
Abandoning the War-on-Terror, and resolving the Middle East Conflict will end a major drain on American financial resources and will enable America to end the present economic decline.
Stopping the War-on-Terror, does not mean that America will withdraw from the world scene. On the contrary, it will place America in a position of global leadership.
America shall lead the world not by senseless wars, or political intrigues, but by establishing a Global World Order based on Natural Justice and Rule of Law. And such World Order will serve best the American Interests and the Interest of all Mankind.
Your vote for me is your vote for American Revival. Obama cannot do it - he has proved it in his first term.
This website contains many articles on topics of current interest which will help Mitt Romney and his election team to answer questions - and win with a landlide.