If we have to choose between Newt and Obama do we choose on political ideas or on degree of obedience to God?
Nobody is entirely happy with Obama, including the most liberal of Democrats who were expecting a much more radical departure from the policies of George W. Bush. He said we'd leave Iraq and we did - three years into his administration. He said we'd leave Afghanistan, but that's a promise whose fulfillment is still in the works (Personally, I wouldn't mind it if our collective forces unleashed barbaric fury upon those hateful, murderous bastards till there was nothing left to identify). Certainly, nobody should fault Obama for committing the forces it took to get bin Laden, especially after hearing Bush say it's not about one guy. I do believe that the Bush administration gave up on finding bin Laden, and that Obama put resources into it because bin Laden's death would give us an excuse to leave.
Obama's most controversial decision was to fund the Wall Street bailout, which left little money for social programs. In doing so, he continued the Bush bailouts and he did so under the advice of many experts that to fail to do would have brought about another Great Depression. These were the banks that fund the banks you and I use. Had they gone under, credit would have been tighter than it has been since 2009. I still don't know if this was the best move or a massive fleecing of the American people, but Bush and Obama adopted the same position on the matter.
I think Republicans who blame the President for the Great Recession are playing politics. Obama didn't invent the mortgage meltdown. He simply got stuck with the bill. And if Obama gets the blame over here, who do we blame in Europe, which is going through its own crisis because the European Union is trying to consolidate its currency. Obama didn't kill Europe, and while Europe's misery is higher because of debts in Greece, Italy and Ireland, the Germans and the French are suffering - and their economic practices were much tighter. If China goes into a recession, in the not-too-distant future, as venture capitalists move to places like Malaysia (to avoid paying higher labor costs), will we blame Obama for that?
This is not to say that Obama couldn't have done a better job on the economic front. Like other democrats, the president has a weakness for his base. Take, for example, the Dream Act - a piece of legislation I agree with. Why would the democrats be so stupid as to put this one up for a vote at this particular time? Did they really think it was smart politics to sponsor a bill to give citizenship opportunities to the children of illegal aliens, at a time when so many Americans are hurting? (I happen to believe in the basic idea that a child brought to America, who has obeyed the rules and wants to go to school or join the armed services, should not be kept in limbo, just to satisfy the gripes of the Tea Party.)
I don't agree with this administration's decision to make all organizations offer their employees free birth control - including Catholic charities. I do think that birth control is a good thing. My wife and I had four children but we decided when to have them. I think the Catholic opposition to birth control is insane. Still, this is America. Forcing their hand is insensitive.
But by and large, when Mitt Romney says Obama "chose to follow" and now it's time for him to "get out of the way," I think he's got it upside down. Obama did lead but the Republicans went into obstructionist mode. The democrats wimped out when they should have stuck to their guns. The Republicans would not have agreed to only push legislation when they had a 60-vote majority in the Senate. If they'd have had 51 votes, they'd have gone for it.
Obama's error, in my opinion, was to put all his eggs in the healthcare basket. He underestimated the forces working against him. He wanted to be the first president to get healthcare passed - and he did - but at the cost of getting almost nothing else done. The Republicans filled the streets with protestors, organized and choreographed to cry about all the hardships healthcare was imposing upon them - years before any difference had actually rolled out. The Democrats blew it by not focusing on the short pass. Going for the long bomb, they missed opportunities to gain so much yardage through the short game. Think of how many pieces of legislation they could have passed had they focused on the low-hanging fruit. A smarter strategy would have been to pass lots of common-sense, feasible legislation and to have left the healthcare debate for the second term.
The stimulus money was also too cheap. This is what happened to FDR. Just as the Great Depression was starting to improve, he cut back too soon and it lengthened things out. The stimulus program needed to be more extensive. Much like Bush's attempt to occupy Iraq on the cheap, it wasn't aggressive enough (in the first Gulf War, we committed half a million from the outset; in the second one, we committed a third of the force).
In the meantime, Romney and company were wrong about Libya. The president committed us to a course of action that involved minimal exposure, and Gaddafi fell. Had the Republicans been in charge, Gaddafi would still be there. Mitt was against our involvement, then he switched to criticizing the president's multilateral approach - as taking too much time. It was a bit like saying the food is lousy and the portions are too small.
While I would rather see Mitt in the White House than Newt, a sleazeball who trades his women in like he's leasing a Volvo, I'm not convinced that Romney can do anything other than utter scripted Republican mantras. I think the newfound Republican focus on illegal immigrants - as scapegoats of the recession - is despicable. I think Mitt's idea of self-deportation and insistence that the children of illegals go back to Mexico - as adults - and apply for a green card over there, is completely out of touch.
I don't believe the mortgage meltdown, which was caused by an underregulated financial market, is a reason to call for more deregulation. I don't believe that cutting the taxes on the wealthiest Americans - many of whom pay less in taxes than most people - is feasible. These people got plenty of tax breaks during the Bush administration, an act of largesse masked by the massive expenditures of the two-front war on terror. Doing so doubled the national debt. The idea of paying our way out by cutting relief to the poor - during the worst recession in fifty years - is completely out of touch.
If there were a better choice than Obama, I'd vote for it, but for the time being, I can't see anything better on the horizon. Romney isn't it. Gingrich isn't even close.
