There's a great moment in The West Wing episode "Bartlet for America" where, in the midst of an almost unfathomable number of setbacks, President Bartlet is reminded of how his path to office started, a napkin with "Bartlet for America" written on it.
The small, inauspicious start of the (fictional) rise to the Bartlet Presidency.
I don't know if there was a similar moment in President Obama's life, but I'm reminded of that West Wing moment now. Here we are, a couple of weeks away from the election, and by all accounts, the race is close. Everything that could go wrong, has: the horror in Libya (and subsequent politicization); an abysmal performance in the first debate; the slower than hoped for economic recovery.
As a supporter of the President, I could be disheartened. And, at times, I have been. But then my mind drifts to that West Wing episode and I feel that, somehow, it's going to work out.
I really believe this to be a clear cut decision. I don't expect social conservatives to vote for the President's re-election, but that's not worrying to me&emdash;social conservatism (in its current form) is a dying philosophy. But everyone else should see the President as the clearer choice. Tax cuts for the middle class, offset by closing loopholes for large corporations and very high income earners. Getting out of Afghanistan. A measured approach to Iran, to avoid getting involved in another costly war in the Middle East. Obamacare (which, contrary to popular belief, will reduce the deficit by $84 billion dollars). Saving the American Auto Industry. Reducing unemployment to the lowest rate since before the recession.
Do fiscal conservatives and libertarians agree with all of these? Certainly not. But what's your option? The Romney plan seems to imply some magic by which he will grow the military, likely get involved militarily in Iran, and cut tax rates for all Americans. There's been no detailed plan put forth on how that will actually happen. A repeal of Obamacare will grow the deficit (see the aforementioned CBO link).
The largest paper in Utah (the home of Mitt Romney's greatest victory, the 2002 Winter Olympics) has now endorsed President Obama. (They endorsed the President in 2008, and former President Bush in 2004.)
More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.
It's a critical moment in our nation. We're on the cusp of breaking out of a long-term economic depression (arguably caused by greatly lowered tax rates while in the middle of the one of the largest military buildups in our nation's history). We're making progress towards social equality.
Going backwards with a Romney election would be one of the single worst decisions in our nation's history. Instead, let me paraphrase that great West Wing episode:
I’ve been walking around in a kind of daze for two weeks and everywhere I go…planes, trains, restaurants, meetings…I find myself scribbling something down.
Obama for America.
