Monday’s presidential debate, the third and last between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney, featured a forceful and articulate defense of Obama’s foreign policy. That was no surprise. What was surprising was that it came from Romney.
Who would be best to implement Barack Obama’s foreign policy, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?
In the final debate, Mitt Romney agreed with almost every Barack Obama’s foreign policy. He even congratulated Obama “on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaeda.” Then he went on about making peace: “Our purpose is to make sure the world is more—is peaceful. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war.” A man who proposes to increase 2 trillion dollars in military is now talking about peace? Now that is a true case of Romnesia.
Obama dominated the debate last night and proved that he has the intelligent to take on foreign issues. His response to Romney’s lies were quite aggressive with lines like, “Governor Romney, you keep trying to airbrush history” and “Your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map.” When Romney falsely accused him of the “apology tour,” he fired back, “the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” Romney sank so bad in the debate that he kept saying, “attacking me is not going to help.” It sure helped him in the first debate when he attacked Obama.
“Obama’s agenda gives steady hand to economic growth”:
Principled leadership, consensus and time are required. Obama’s accomplishments and positions on health care, higher education, and economic and social issues continue to make him the best choice for the interests at home in Southern Arizona and in our country.
“Allow Obama to build on progress”:
With Obama, we know what we are getting. He has consistently embraced the concept of community. Obama believes we are not just a bunch of individuals but a nation, and that we must work together to address the challenges we face.
There has been so much ugly campaigning this year that the voter’s first chore is to separate fact from fiction. Obama is not a socialist — those who make this claim know nothing about either Obama or socialism — and Romney is not a hard-hearted corporate pirate who would shred the social safety net.
Obama’s plan for his second term:
What is telling about a presidency is its tilt, its direction, spirit and priorities. Thus, to those who argue the president lacks a plan for a second term: Look at the foundation that has been set. He has used the levers of government to bolster the economy, investing in education, innovation and health care, understanding the essential role of the public sector in competitiveness. Those tasks are not complete. They would continue.
Urging Coloradans to re-elect Obama:
[Romney’s] comments on the 47 percent of Americans who refuse to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” were a telling insight into his views and a low point of the campaign.
Obama, on the other hand, has shown throughout his term that he is a steady leader who keeps the interests of a broad array of Americans in mind.
“For president, Barack Obama The New Mexican”:
To Obama, government is not the enemy. It is not dispenser of all wisdom or wealth, either. Government is the safety net that catches the weak, the sick, the old and the very poor. It is also our collective will in action — building, defending and securing our nation. Obama will not privatize Social Security or reduce Medicare to a voucher system that costs too much while not guaranteeing treatment. He understands that Medicaid, which underwrites medical care for the very poor, must be protected from budget slashers who think nothing of leaving sick people at the emergency room door while asking for more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
The stakes for women in this election are even clearer. Obama has a particularly strong record on issues important to women, from equal pay to access to health care to education. In stark contrast to Romney, the president steadfastly supports abortion rights. The next president could appoint perhaps two Supreme Court justices, and those appointments could determine whether a woman’s right to control her own body is overturned. Romney, who supported abortion rights as Massachusetts governor and now opposes them with limited exceptions, cannot be trusted to stand up to social conservatives who view overturning Roe vs. Wade as a litmus test for prospective justices.
On balance, Obama’s handling of all that has been good. U.S. forces have left Iraq and the end is in sight in Afghanistan. Muammar Gadhafi was ousted with no American troops involved. Democracy has a tenuous but real toehold in some Arab countries. And while the U.S. economy is recovering too slowly, it is recovering. As Vice President Joe Biden put it, Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.
Amid all that, Obama kept a campaign promise and signed into law a sweeping health-care reform package.
The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work
The best endorsement of 2012 so far. If you haven’t followed politics in the past few months, make sure you read this piece before heading to the booth.