Yes, I'm voting for Romney. Here's why.

by Libby Sternberg

Four years ago, I voted for John McCain, more out of fear of what Barack Obama would do than out of enthusiastic support for the Arizona senator. I was more energized by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, which I know will appall a good number of folks on the left and right, who continue to believe Governor Palin was some kind of ultra-conservative nincompoop with not enough knowledge or experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

But what I liked about Palin was how sure she was of her principles: small government, muscular foreign policy. And she had executive experience, which was more than any candidate in that race could claim. Being a senator--one among many--isn't the same as having to make decisions for which there is no one else to blame.

The criticisms of Palin now seem silly, though, when we watch the current vice president go from gaffe to gaffe, with no one asking the serious question: is this just his way or is something else going on that should disqualify him for office? I'm posing that question in the most charitable way, not as a snide or snarky criticism.

My 2008 lack of enthusiasm for the Republican nominee was shared by many, obviously. So I turned my attention to the new president, and I will admit it in front of all my conservative pals: I was hopeful. He was America's first African-American president. He had a young, beautiful family. He seemed to bring new promise to the country. Maybe he'd bring us all together.

And what could conservatives offer anyway? The previous president had committed us to two wars (which I'd supported) that were now dragging on with vague results. He'd overspent. And, what really bothered me: he hadn't effectively communicated how important his good proposals were, leaving the messaging field to his many opponents, afflicted with a feverish Bush Derangement Syndrome that dominated news cycles.

I was an education reform advocate at the time, and I liked many aspects of No Child Left Behind. But Bush wasn't good at defending that law to critics within and outside his party, and it made people like me feel as if we were alone fighting that battle, without a leader.

George W. Bush, from what most accounts say, is a very good man. But he didn't seem to realize that when he "turned the other cheek" in the face of criticism, he was passing on a chance to defend his supporters, who needed him to be stalwart and vocal in the face of our mutual adversaries.

So I was ready for a change, any change. And I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama with great excitement, even though I'd voted for the other guy.

But it didn't take long for that excitement to fade into disappointment as reality set in. The reality was this: a young, new United States Senator with little experience at the national level would have to be exceptionally talented or surrounded by an exceptionally talented team to navigate the tricky political currents of Washington, DC. The president quickly demonstrated he was neither that gifted nor surrounded by a particularly gifted group of advisers.

For the first two years of his term, his party controlled Congress. Yet he struggled mightily to find consensus on a health care bill that was so complex and ill-conceived even the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi let slip that they had to "pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." She may have walked back that remark, but it was emblematic of the confusion and lack of leadership Americans, both left and right, were witnessing--the bill was massive and complicated, and the president had had trouble getting it accepted even by his own party members.

At least on the foreign policy side of the equation, I breathed more easily. Well, for a time. You see, as the Middle East erupted, I came to be grateful that Sen. McCain wasn't Commander-in-Chief. Sen. McCain, a brave and loyal military man himself, seemed, to me at least, a bit too swift to suggest American involvement that could lead to boots on the ground. Who knows what he would have done had he been president? I was no different than the rest of America at that point: war weary. I was content to have a noninterventionist president, even if his policies were benignly feckless.

However, they might not have been so "benign" after all, as the September 11--a day that will live in infamy-- attack on the Benghazi consulate seems to indicate.

In April 2004, Condoleezza Rice, then assistant to the president for national security affairs, testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States that al Qaeda had been at war with us before we even recognized it as such (emphasis mine):

Long before that day (September 11, 2001), radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al Qaeda and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos, and to murder innocent Americans. The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them.

As more details about the Benghazi attack come out, one question stands out amidst the fog of "war": why was the White House so quick to blame the attack on an obscure video when reports suggest the administration was receiving news that it could have been a terrorist attack?

My gratitude that a reflexive interventionist wasn't president has now been replaced with fears that a president unwilling to confront the truth of terrorism was sitting in the Oval Office instead. As Rice pointed out, previous attacks escalated over the years, starting with attacks on our interests abroad, before they culminated in the horror of 9/11. What's next? Will we be ready?

Beyond these big issues of national security and a massive health care overhaul is the litany of disappointments that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, repeats in his campaign message: high unemployment, high dependency on food stamp programs, high deficit, high regulations that stifle business and job growth.

President Obama was hired to tackle the economic problems. He has not done so, nor has he offered anything that isn't "more of the same"for the next four years. I know his team blames "obstructionist Republicans" for lack of meaningful progress, but this stubborn fact remains: his party had control of government for two years, and he didn't even come close to solving the problem during that time. And he's shown a spectacular disinterest in solving the problem of entitlement program spending, despite convening a "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" (aka Simpson-Bowles).

But paying attention to Simpson-Bowles, perhaps even trying to enact suggestions from it, would have been a steep hill for the president to climb, pitting him against a large portion of his party, who view entitlement programs as sacrosanct. Changing these programs, even to save them, is viewed with suspicion and derision.

Liberals often portray themselves as the party of compassion, pointing at Republicans as wealth- and greed-lovers who want to give tax cuts to the rich while throwing granny over the cliff to cut Medicare.

It always surprises me how easily some Democrats embrace those images, not realizing that it might say something extremely unflattering about themselves that they swallow the notion that they are more righteous on the issue of poverty and helping the needy than their Republican brethren. They seem to forget that we are not talking about personal compassion when we discuss public policy. They are free to give as much or as little of their time and treasure as they want to charitable organizations to help the poor, and no mean-spirited Scrooge--whatever party he might belong to-- will hold a gun to their heads to stop them.

No, when we discuss compassion in terms of public policy, we're really discussing how much of our neighbors' money are we going to forcibly confiscate to go to programs to help the poor. One can argue that there is no compassion in taking money from others, no matter how wealthy you think they are. One can also argue there's no compassion in ignoring financial issues that will affect future generations and programs for the needy, as well.

Even some Democrats get this, such as William Saletan of Slate, who, although voting for Obama, had this to say about Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, Paul Ryan (emphasis mine):

Ryan refutes the Democratic Party’s bogus arguments. He knows that our domestic spending trajectory is unsustainable and that liberals who fail to get it under control are leading their constituents over a cliff, just like in Europe. Eventually, you can’t borrow enough money to make good on your promises, and everyone’s screwed. Ryan understands that the longer we ignore the debt crisis and postpone serious budget cuts—the liberal equivalent of denying global warming—the more painful the reckoning will be. There’s nothing compassionate about that kind of irresponsibility.

By choosing budget-cutter Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney demonstrated he understands the importance of addressing our debt crisis. Ryan, seen as a political lightning rod to some, was a bold choice. It took political courage.

I will admit I was not an early Romney supporter. I didn't like the fact that, as governor of Massachusetts, he'd championed a health care bill similar to the president's. I didn't like the fact that he seemed more a pragmatist than a principled man. But I've come to believe he is a principled pragmatist, a problem-solver and, as a Republican governor in the deep blue state of Massachusetts, a good negotiator who had to learn how to work with the other team to get things done.

And, ironically, after four years of the hope-and-change president, Mitt Romney seems to be the one with the hopeful message this year, the "yes, we can" attitude, while the spectacularly tone-deaf team of the president harps on Bain, Big Bird, binders, bayonets, messages with creepy sexual innuendos, and...revenge voting.

Those who know me won't be surprised I'm voting for Mitt Romney. But they might be surprised to learn that I'm now doing it with hope, excitement and enthusiasm, emotions I didn't feel four years ago when I checked off the box for John McCain.

And more time too, please!

by Leslie S. Lebl

Let me offer a dissenting view from the conventional wisdom.

I've liked the fact that the Republican party has no clear front-runner in the Presidential race. Yes, I know that no one else agrees with me, but since this blog is a wonderful place for lone voices, let me explain what I mean.

I saw the end of Newt Gingrich's victory speech Tuesday night, after the Georgia primary; he was smart, analytical, funny -- and as long as there's no chance he'll actually win the nomination, he's a great addition to the field. His intellect sets a standard for the others and pushes them to perform better. It's a shame his character is so unsteady, but he does make an important contribution... especially when he's bashing the media for avoiding the real issues in this campaign year.

It's been painful to watch Rick Santorum lose his way in social issues, but there's a segment of the Republican electorate that thinks these issues are important, so by all means, let's talk about them. Better to air them than not, although I think the final consensus will form around the candidate most likely to win, not the most conservative one.

Both of them push Mitt Romney, who needs a push. Let's hope the pressure gets him out of his shell, talking about issues that matter to voters. And since he sames to take his sweet time to open up, let's be glad there's no hurry.

A Variation on "I'm Right, You're Evil."

by Libby Sternberg

Civil policy discussions should be based on this simple premise, regardless of one's point of view:

I'm right, and you're wrong.

That starting point means both parties respect each other, but they believe they have information and analyses that bolster their point of view...that their adversaries have not seen or, perhaps, understood in the same way.

That's the ideal, but we all know that it's hard to achieve. It's so tempting, at times, to suggest your debating adversary is not just wrong, but wrong because he or she is stupid (see Newsweek's latest cover) or....evil.

This "evil adversary" meme has taken a particularly distasteful turn ever since Barack Obama was elected president. In the past three years, those who disagree with the president have regularly been called racists. The incidents are so numerous, I won't bother to link to examples. Anyone who shares the center-right or conservative worldview can probably offer up dozens without much effort.

Now we have the latest entry in this narrative--a New York Times opinion piece by Lee Siegel describing Mitt Romney as the "whitest white man" to run for president in living memory.

After reading Siegel's piece, I knew precisely what he was up to--he's "telegraphing" to Times readers, otherwise unwilling to call their ideological opponents "evil," that they can be comfortable with labeling the president's adversaries as closet racists, and they should feel free to pour their ideological sympathy on those backward folks even while sadly recognizing the roots of their opposition. This point was made brilliantly in this New Republic rebuttal by John McWhorter.  Here's a McWhorter snippet:

"...is Wonder-fully white Romney 'signaling' that he is 'not black'? There’s no case for that in any meaningful sense, other than to allow Siegel to flatter himself and his readers as sophisticated enough to be immune to the racism that is still 'out there.'”

Despite gussying up his argument with supposedly thoughtful ponderings on how someone like Romney "telegraphs" to those dumb conservatives that he is not going to scare them like that dark-skinned fellow now occupying the Oval Office, Siegel is just doing some old-fashioned grade school name-calling. He should have skipped the philosophical posing and merely written "Your mother wears Army boots, you conservative hicks who oppose Obama."

Like my fellow travelers, I've listened to this trope for three years now. It's the same old "I'm right, you're evil" line used for centuries by cowardly debaters. "I'm right, you're racist" is but a variation on that theme.

Rep. Allen West, himself an African-American Republican, has also weighed in, not specifically on the Siegel piece, but with a plea for the president and his handlers and supporters not to use unfounded racist claims in the coming election. Here's a link to his piece, and here's one of his best lines:

"According to a Washington Post poll in September 2011, the proportion of black Americans with a 'strongly positive' view of President Obama has slipped from 83 percent to 58 percent. It would obviously be absurd to say the black community’s changing view of President Obama is racially biased, so how can one make the same claim about white members opposing his policies?"

Good question, Allen. But I'm not holding my breath for a civil answer from the likes of Mr. Siegel.

-------

Libby Sternberg is a novelist.

More Debates, Please

by Libby Sternberg

The first votes in the 2012 presidential race were finally cast last night at the Iowa caucuses. And, to no one's shock, Barack Obama won. Well, in the Democratic primary. In the Republican one, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are at the top of the pack, followed by Ron Paul.

The fact that these were the first votes cast might come as a surprise to some folks only paying attention tangentially because, for months now, media pundits have been gabbing about what candidate is ahead--in public opinion polls, that is, not in actual, real voters' votes.

Journalists love to focus on the "horse race" aspect of an election cycle -- who's ahead and why -- rather than on the details of a candidate's policy positions or his or her background. (Well, at least when it's a Democrat-- in that case, background investigation gets scant and/or glowing attention; if it's a Republican, every rug is lifted to see what dirt hides there.)

And what has this process taught us?  Well, it's taught me that public debates are a good thing and possibly even the antidote to the endless blathering and "gotcha" interviews of traditional media. Numerous public debates might even be -- are you ready? -- the best way to keep campaign expenses reasonable, meaning that less-well-funded candidates have a chance against mega-funded ones. Let's examine the recent GOP experiences for evidence:

When the primary campaigns began, the candidate field settled on Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and, oh, yeah, Jon Huntsman.

Mitt Romney, for many reasons, led the field in public opinion polls, but voters were clearly not settled on him and looking for an alternative. Into that role stepped a succession of candidates, and with each one's surge, the traditional media herd thundered in their direction with the usual breathless conjectures about the latest rising star. 

Texas Governor Rick Perry was one of those Mitt-alternatives. Although most liberal media surely didn't care much for Perry's policy approach, his rise to prominence in the electoral field was fueled, at least in part, by some of the media's oohing and aahing over his entry into the field, he with his job-creating record in Texas and his conservative bona fides.

And then....well, then the debates happened. And not only was Gov. Perry an extremely poor debater, some of his previous positions were revealed, by other candidates and by the debate moderators, as not being that conservative, or even that good, at all.

Polls that had shown him on top during the breathless media rush, afterwards showed a precipitous drop.

Media "gatekeepers" were trumped by the voters' ability to view the candidate himself.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich's story is a bit different, but it still showed the influence of the debates. Prior to Gov. Perry's decline, Mr. Gingrich's narrative in the media was one of the mean-spirited, Tiffany-client hypocrite who didn't have a chance.

Then, in the debates, he really began to shine, with intelligent, information-packed answers to questions and a refusal to beat up on his fellow candidates, focusing his criticism on the president's policies.

Once again, polls shifted. The media gatekeepers no longer owned the narrative, controlled the story. Voters saw for themselves who this man was, and they liked what they saw of his ideas. (That changed, of course, as Mr. Gingrich inadequately responded to criticisms from fellow candidates.)

I have heard complaints about the number of debates that have taken place, but they've served a great purpose -- they've allowed voters to make their own assessments of the candidates, rather than having the traditional media present assessments to them.

When voters can see for themselves and gather their own information on the candidates, less money is needed to counter false impressions, and candidates with less money still have a chance.

So, I say, "more debates, please," especially after the primaries are over and it's one Republican against the incumbent. Instead of the traditional two or three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate, let's have a schedule packed with them. Let the candidates debate often. Let them debate everywhere--on television, on the internet, on radio.

As long as the moderators' questions are intelligent and relevant (here are some ideas), debates help candidates get past the traditional media gatekeepers and go directly to the public with their ideas.
______

Libby Sternberg is a novelist.

Forget the Frontrunner

By Leslie S. Lebl

I'm so tired of listening to pundits decry the lack of a credible Republican presidential candidate that I feel moved to proclaim the exact opposite. I think it's a very good thing that we don't have a frontrunner on whom all Republican hopes are pinned, for two reasons.

First, right now the Republican platform is in flux, as shown by how House Speaker John Boehner's position on "revenue increases" changed during the debt ceiling negotiations. At first, he obviously thought he had to give President Obama some kind of concession. Then he discovered that he could get the deal without one.

Obama may think the fall "supercommission" will produce significant tax increases, although I doubt it. But imagine if, as the Republican nominee, you had to offer an opinion - without being at the negotiating table. The perils are extreme: if you say some kind of increase is okay, you look like a wimp if Obama caves. If you refuse to consider any hikes and the package includes tax reform that may involve some increases, you're toast. And if you refuse to say anything, you get painted as a coward -- just ask Mitt Romney, the current leader of the pack.

Second, and conversely, choosing a front-runner for Republican nominee could hurt the evolution of the Republican platform. Just think if criticism of ObamaCare had to be tailored to avoid criticizing RomneyCare. Or if concessions made to Michele Bachmann alienated too many independents.

The truth is that the current configuration has its advantages. Boehner and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lead the charge for spending cuts, debt reduction -- and bipartisan compromise. They may win fame and glory but, if recent opinion polls are any indication, opprobrium is more likely. However, they can at least do what they see as necessary without worrying about how this will affect their presidential campaign, as neither is running. And the future Republican nominee, whoever s/he is, will profit from any progress they achieve.

Yes, I know: President Obama is out there raising lots of money that no Republican can match. That probably won't change. But if Republican congressional leaders can build consensus among Republicans and independents for real fiscal reform, that may make all the difference.