President Barack Obama has many accomplishments that may earn him reelection. Early in his presidency he acted boldly to rescue the American car manufacturers and continue the Bush bailouts; he appointed two women who bring little ideology but great balance to the high court; he proposed repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; he proved to be tough on terrorism, but in a way that leaves a lighter American footprint abroad; and, of course, Obama set in motion sweeping healthcare reform.
He has stumbled along the way, too. Certain promises like closing Guantanamo Bay, tackling climate change, and quickly withdrawing troops from Afghanistan were broken. To be sure, there were many political and logistical obstacles that precluded such change. But ultimately the President chooses where to focus his energy and political capital.
With the national unemployment rate languishing at eight percent, Democrats need to start exercising some introspection. There is a chance that Mitt Romney becomes the 45th president. Does the party dare engage in the same obstructionist politics that Republicans have spent the last four years perfecting? Will the Democrats’ only purpose be to ensure Romney is a one-term president?
With an anti-bailout war cry in early 2009, Rick Santelli, of CNBC, galvanized what would become the Tea Party. The gambit to make Obama a one-term president began and the Tea Party acted as a pawn of the GOP to do its dirty work.
Legions of hard-right candidates, both in the mid-term elections and in the Republican primary, had opportunities to build a platform and curry a strong base. But the stew they offered proved too pungent. The Sarah Palin’s, Michelle Bachmann’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world branded Obama as a “socialist” and declared that the country had been hijacked and needed rescuing. Mainstream Republicans walked to the fringe, took a look over the edge and into the abyss, but decided not to jump. There would be no coming back, no redemption for risking the legitimacy of the party by backing vitriol spewing Tea Party candidates. Alas, the aseptic Mitt Romney emerged as the Republican to go against Obama this November.
This is an interesting pick considering the events of the past four years. Especially since Romney epitomizes what the right supposedly loathes: he has supported corporate bailouts, a woman’s choice to have an abortion, and as governor of Massachusetts he enacted a plan nearly identical to Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act.
So if Romney wins in November, is he the man democrats want to have pilloried for the past year?
Democrats like to say that Romney and his recently selected running-mate Paul Ryan are not “serious” candidates. And granted, it is easy to scoff at some of their proposed policies—especially Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. But these are serious candidates, who, whether considered reasonable or not, have plans that warrant debate. Policy makers and pundits do a disservice to the country when they denounce each other’s plans without offering their own. So when Democrats say it is time for a real debate, let there be one.
In Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” he tells a story of a protester who questioned his pro-choice stance. After their exchange the protester said that he could not vote for him, but wished Obama well and said that he’d say a prayer for him. Obama then wrote, “But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own—that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.”
This is a powerful passage, and one that President and all Democrats should remember. This extension of good faith was stripped from Obama after his election. His every proposal was shrouded in cynicism. Democrats should welcome a presentation of Romeny’s proposals, and defeat him by articulating to the American people why he is wrong, and why Obama is right.
What I'm Reading Today 