The sad truth about a second Obama presidency
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 8:11AM 
From David Brooks in the NYT yesterday: the reality that a Romney presidency compromising with a Democratic Senate would lead to a decent amount of necessary reform (including dropping the Bush tax cuts), while an Obama presidency would lead to very little advance and continue the general political gridlock in DC.
Why?
Romney isn't much of a right-winger. That's all a sales job that's been rather effectively ditched in recent days and weeks to emphasize he'd really rule center-right. If he squeaks in, that's the mandate he'd have. He'd be realistic, as he was in Massachusetts, with the Democratic Senate, and things would get done. Plenty of compromises would follow, and Romney would largely be villified by the far-right - not the far-left.
In truth, Obama isn't much of a left-winger. He'd continue ruling center-left, but the nutcases in the GOP-dominated House would continue doing their best to sabotage all progress, pushing him, in his second term, primarily into foreign affairs as a refuge. For Obama to win, as he looks like he will (just barely), via a very negative campaign, he'll enter office with virtually no mandate. Dems will be happy enough to forestall the GOP nutcases in the House, but we'd be looking at 4 more years of stasis (and no, the complete nonsense sales-job of America going whatever by 2016 under Obama doesn't register with me). Frankly, I think Romney would likely do a far better job of finessing Obamacare (originally, Romneycare) into full existence.
I agree with Brooks' analysis completely. As much as I dislike the vast majority of the Republican agenda, this is my primary reason for preferring Romney to a second Obama term: I see the promise of advance under Romney; and I see virtually no chance of any under Obama.
And I prefer some progress to none - simple as that.
But, in truth, I have no individual say in the matter. Indiana will go Romney by a wide margin, so my vote will be meaningless.
Reader Comments (13)
I'd add to this that I'm hoping Romney is a better executive than Obama has proven to be. Their respective resumes would certainly imply Romney has a lot more executive experience than Obama.
I too enjoyed Brooks analysis & agree completely with your comments. Less than a week to go!
I also want to complement on your blog how much I enjoyed The World at Global Population Peak in your Wikistrat Newsletter=best Barnett read since Great Powers!
Obama, through the HHS, had a lot of discretion how the Healthcare act would be implemented. I am surprised and almost floored at how he didn't "block grant" the money to the states, and make the enforcement of health insurance a clear state prerogative with a big stick - pulling of the grants. This act would have been completely constitutional - it would truly be Romneycare - state based with money strings - Unless I am missing something.
Could be right IF he has a Democratic (or at least de-Tea Partied) Congress to deal with. After all the tune changes he's had to make to get this far, I'm not holding my breath for him to suddenly grow a backbone against the radical wing of his party:P
There's also the question of whether rewarding a party that's spent the past four years refusing to work with the President on partisan grounds is a good idea--that essentially says there's no point in having more than one party in Washington DC. Might as well switch to a Prime Ministerial system at that point.
If your vote is meaningless than why not write in who you think is the best person for the job?
We watched Yankee manager Joe Girardi bench his $275 million dollar player Alex Rodriguez because he was not the best player for the job.
I struggle with choosing between our two presidential candidates and ask myself are they the best person for the job? They both have the support of their political parties and I feel we have to vote for one of them because thats the way the system works.
These two candidates are not the best person for the job and to continue with this baseball analogy need to be benched and the best player should be placed in the lineup.
Most of you will say a write in vote is a wasted vote and I struggle with that. But like Mr. Girardi I have to go with the best player, therefore I plan on writing in Jon Huntsman for President and suggest he teams up with Sheila Bair as his VP.
"Pundits and voters persist in believing that Mitt Romney is a covert moderate. But as Carl Bernstein reports, it's far more likely he'll enact the Tea Party's far-right agenda."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/carl-bernstein-on-mitt-romney-s-radicalism.html
Aren't you concerned about Romney's foreign policy?
I would be afraid that he would bumble into a war.
Working police officers in major cities are picking up on disturbing rumors of "trouble" if Obama loses the election. This is the word I am getting from contacts still on active duty. The economy is not good, jobs are hard to find and there is an uneasy, unsettled feeling in the ghettos and barrios. Riots can break out because a team loses a basketball game or someone is injured in a police action. We have made it through several hot summers now without any major civil disturbances. There may be some pent up emotions out there. The nasty tone of this election is not helpful.
The man doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Are we going to elect a man whose espouses that the United States policy should be to torture detainees? If so, what are we going to do about it. As individuals.
Hmm. Trusting that all of Romney's rhetoric is simply a mirage is something I am not prepared to do. I worry he will get us into a war with Iran and as another commenter said I do not want to reward his party for hijacking the democratic system. Obama gets my vote as he seems to have a solid moderate record.
You can't fool me Tom, I know you voted for Obama. Don't ask how I know, I have my sources. :)
RE: Huntsman vote: YES, agreed. That is awesome.
Party politics ~ whether multiple or singular ~ has and ever will divide nations as clearly seen by our own democratic process of campaigning and voting. So I am pondering three questions:
1. Are party politics necessary to have a strong and effective government?
2. Is the electoral college a necessary entity in the 21st century?
3. If the answer to #2 is "yes", then shouldn't we be voting for our electoral representatives rather than for our President? If the answer is "no, then shouldn't the electoral college be disbanded?
I am so tired ~ and frankly a bit ashamed ~ that in order to become the President of the United States, our candidates must lower themselves to such immature and uncivilized campaign strategies. There must be a better way to find the best person for this most-esteemed position. Our collective great minds have figured out how to get to and build a Space Station in space. Surely we can figure out how to elect a President in a dignified manner.