Tag Archives: mitt romney

The Better Angels of Our Nature

A recent article from the Washington Post quotes director Steven Spielberg about his new movie, Lincoln:

“This is a good time to reintroduce Lincoln to the country,” the director argued at his New York office recently, “in a period of time when the ground will still be smoldering after the first Tuesday in November.”

Though the trailers have left me wondering whether the film will be too cute by a half, this does nothing to detract from the person of our nation’s 16th president.  There are, after all, clear reasons why Mr. Lincoln is often ranked at the top of presidential rating lists.  He led a divided nation–quite literally the most divided it has ever been–yet realized that there were matters more profound at work than simple victory.

Delivered near the end of the Civil War, he closed his second inaugural address with the following:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

And so, as our thoughts turn–as on a dime–from a sometimes bitter campaign to a new post-election world, may we think about the work ahead of us as a nation.

Lincoln premieres in wide release on 16 November.

 

Alea Iacta Est

On this day that comes only once every four years, I encourage you to vote.  Vote because it is our right.  Vote because it is our privilege.  Vote because, unlike so many in our world and throughout all of recorded time, the vast majority of us have been given–wisely or not–a real stake in the kind of world we want to live in.

As you vote for the office of President of the United States, consider the momentous duty that awaits this person for the next four years.  Consider their political positions in light of your own personal, economic, and social stands.  Take stock for one last time who you really think has what it takes to lead our nation in this next little while.  There are momentous questions to be addressed here at home as the experiment of democracy continues on its 236 year journey and beyond.  No less defining matters await us abroad…and history will be affected by the choices we together make.

I’ve been pretty sure of my vote for some time now.  The man I’ve chosen is not perfect.  Far from it.  But he is my choice to lead our nation.  I know others will disagree with my feelings in this matter, and that is quite alright. I’m not convinced, as so many seem to be, that his opponent is some kind of malevolent creature.  Far from it.  While I prefer my candidate, I will readily accept the alternative should the will of the people deign a different result from the one I desire.  Both candidates are capable men and have the potential and ability to lead us forward.

In this “City of Man,” as St. Augustine might call it, there are a certain set of principles by which we live.  Ground rules by which human society operates.  An election such as this one is part and parcel of this system.  As a means of selecting our leaders, I’m rather in favor of it.  Yet all the same it ought to serve as a “reality check” to know that despite the changes these electoral choices can bring, our final hope does not lie simply within these bounds or this horizon.  It is at once humbling and reassuring to know that everything isn’t up to us.

In ultimate matters, we must look far beyond: to the City of God.  For no matter the highest hopes we place in our elected officials and the good they can indeed effect, our truest need can never ultimately find its home in them.

“The Heavenly City outshines Rome, beyond comparison. There, instead of victory, is truth; instead of high rank, holiness; instead of peace, felicity; instead of life, eternity…”

-St. Augustine, City of God

Remember this, even as we together work for the best “City of Man” we can…and VOTE.

Even Better Than the Last Thing

Since Barack Obama and Mitt Romney last met, the electoral world has changed.  Two weeks ago I (and many others) was ready to proclaim that the Republican campaign was effectively over, and that there was just about no way they could possibly win.

What a difference one debate made.  At least according to the conventional wisdom.  Take a look at this chart, and you’ll see the dramatic shift:The Romney campaign seems resurrected from the dead, and every day new articles talk about the great shift that has occurred.

To be sure, things are a lot closer than they were and the race has tightened.  Yet even in this tightening it isn’t as if Romney has moved into a commanding lead–simply a position of parity with the Democratic ticket.  Furthermore, two other charts from RealClearPolitics reveal that, based on the current polls, Romney is not in the lead in electoral votes, which is of course the only kind of math that really matters.

In one sense, this electoral vote contest is close as well.  Take for instance, this chart, which highlights those states that seem likely to go to one candidate or the other:Remember, of course, that while the votes are pretty close, Romney does lag behind; not all of the toss ups are as equally available to him as others.  Going deeper, if we were to follow the direction indicated by a number of polls to further predict the results of the election (definitively assigning electoral votes to one or the other depending on who leads in state polls right now), here are the results:This map even gives Mitt Romney the big state of Florida, and still he cannot reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes.  Even if he manages to take Ohio (an almost must-win state for him and one where is not leading right now), that only takes him to 262.

Is it possible for Mitt Romney to scrap together the necessary electoral votes?  Absolutely.  Is it still harder for him to do than President Obama?  I think so.  Mark Halperin suggested last night that there is a reasonable scenario that has Romney winning, but all still rests on Ohio–a state that he has not really led in.

All of this  is to say, of course, that tonight’s debate is vital for Mitt Romney.  President Obama will almost assuredly not give the lackluster performance he did last time, and in this kind of contest a tie would very well go to the defender.  A tie would serve, perhaps, to stabilize the changes in this race and retain the status quo.  If things stay the same Mitt Romney still has ground to make up, and any shift of momentum back in the other direction means that Romney, who is not really winning right now, will be even farther away from his goal.

Because of the modified expectations for the candidates after the last debate, it will be incredibly hard for Governor Romney to emerge as the clear winner, yet only if he does can the energy of this campaign firmly be said to have shifted in his corner.  In other words, if he wins tonight, the contest will be about Obama trying to beat Romney instead of the other way around.

If he wins…which I think is a very, very tall order indeed.

Beware the Five O’Clock Shadow

If you’re a political enthusiast here in the United States, tonight is the beginning of the endgame for the 2012 presidential election: the first debate.  We’ve seen the two candidates spar from a distance as they put forward their rather different visions for America, but now they get to do it up close and personal….and we’ll be watching.

The presidential debate (and there will be three of them this year) has become engrained in the national consciousness as an accepted part of the election season, but its history is rather short.  The first televised presidential debate did not occur until 1960, and after that not again until 1976.  Legends of Richard Nixon’s poor image in the 1960 debates have continued to haunt candidates ever since, so debates tend to be a high-focus and stressful time for contenders and their teams.

Conventional wisdom and polling suggests that Mitt Romney has the most to gain from the debates, as he is currently consistently behind in most national polls and lags substantially in projected electoral votes.  Even so, it has been suggested that the debates could hold treasure for Obama as well, since a definitive victory would provide him the kind of November margin that could give his next for years a sense of authority and purpose.  We will see what develops.

What is not always encouraging with these events is the kind of maneuvering that surrounds them: pre-packaged zingers, overly rehearsed answers, and the candidates’ setting of expectations so low that any comprehensible performance could be later spun as “good.”  Yet despite all the artifice that can go into what Americans will watch tonight, there will likely be moments of unscripted dialogue, signs of each man’s true thought and personality, and the opportunity for us to understand what they as individuals really believe when pressed and under pressure.  Will there be a free-flowing and open-ended discussion of ideas?  Probably not, but we can dream.

I’m unfortunately going to miss the debates live tonight, but will plan on watching them sometime afterwards and posting my thoughts at that point.

Do We Need A New American Century?

I tuned in to last night’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention to catch the last third of Joe Biden’s speech.  There’s definitely something Truman-y about that way that man talks (and looks).  Oratorically and politically speaking, he had an effective line about “downsizing the American dream” that both attacked potential Republican cuts and the business practices of Mitt Romney all at once.

All of this, of course, to set up the main address by President Obama.  Like the Republicans before him, Obama painted a stark picture of the choice facing Americans in this election.  I won’t go into it much here.  Suffice it to say that partisans on both sides agree that the course of the nation may be altered depending on who wins this election.  The rhetoric may be a bit overblown, but no one can deny that the two candidates have some widely disparate visions.  Hopefully both of them (and, despite the President’s high-minded words last night, I do mean both candidates) can focus on theses issues and stark differences and put the silly matters of politics behind.

What they don’t publicly disagree on, I think, is the desire to see America prosper and take leadership in our world as we have for some time now.  To make, in the words of DNC keynote speaker Julian Castro, “the 21st century another American century.” Both Romney and Obama have spoken directly to this idea as well.

A desire to see American grow and take leadership makes sense, considering our potential and the great number of responsibilities we currently have.  Yet at the same time, I wonder if all of this talk about American exceptionalism (i.e. that America is different and somehow better than the rest of the world) is rather a relic of the past.  I’d ask whether or not the 21st century needs to be an American century.  Whether that kind of question is outdated and anachronistic in our increasingly interdependent, cosmopolitan, and international world.

I don’t mean to sound anti-American or Pollyanna-ish, but I wonder if it is possible to imagine a world where we are not in charge of everything…and that’s OK.  After all, we’ve only been at the top of the heap for about 70 years or so, meaning that a majority of our American story is about being one power (and sometimes a very slight one) amongst many.  The world survived before we ran things.  Might it survive if we stopped running everything?  Might it survive if the 21st century was not ours?

That, of course, is a far cry from saying that we just stop trying or abrogate our duties.  With Governor Romney and President Obama I too want to see American prosper.  I’m just not sure this next century needs to be “American” for us to feel that we have once again arrived.
Next week: No more politics!  A return to topics of history and ministry.

Poor Mitt

Before yet another post, an apology to long-time readers for the overly political bent of the blog this week.  Please know that my continued goal is to write on a variety of topics.  With both the Republican and Democratic conventions happening right now, however, I feel that I should spend some time reflecting on the current state of the presidential race.

Along those lines, I–like many of you–watched Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech last night.  I was again struck by the focused case the Republicans are attempting to make: they are the party of free enterprise, prosperity, and growth.  The Democrats and Barack Obama is not.  Re-electing the president will only increase the size of government, raise taxes, and make things worse.  The only way to correct the direction of the nation is to vote for Romney.

Whether or not you agree with them, this is in large part the position they are putting forth.  With a successful businessman and manager at the head of their ticket, you’d think they’d be making great headway in a time dominated by continued economic troubles and slow growth.  Not amongst diehards of either party, of course, but in the ranks of those in the middle who could and will support whoever they think will help most.  Specifics aside, you’d think it would be a no-brainer that the opposing party would be polling pretty well against the status quo.  But then there’s this chart:

Though Romney has been gaining ground, he’s been running behind President Obama pretty consistently.  Why?  I’ve considered a few reasons.  Let me know what you think:

  • Are bad memories of the George W. Bush years continuing to poison the Republican brand?
  • Is there lingering loyalty to the inspirational and “game-changing” Obama campaign of 2008, regardless of how it all as been perceived to work out?
  • More substantively, has there been a leftward shift in American political opinion from, say, center-right to center-left?
  • Do the particular policies of President Obama simply agree more with where Americans are right now?  Are issues other than economics just too important?
  • Are we as a nation simply unsure of change?
  • Is Mitt Romney far too stiff, patrician, rich, or otherwise incapable to connect with Americans?  Or, dare we say, too Mormon?

In an economic downturn such as this one, you’d think the other party–especially one dominated by a businessman–might be doing a lot better.  And I suspect they will.  Indeed, I suspect Romney has a better chance at winning than that the above chart might suggest.  We will see how the polls change in the next few days…and, importantly, after the Democrats their say next week.

What are your thoughts?

Play Nice

There was a very interesting article on Politico.com last week that discussed the burgeoning race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  In their words:

The general election will pit one exceptionally self-contained, self-disciplined, self-motivated man against another with precisely the same traits.

Voters have a choice between two men whose minds gravitate to rationality and logic — both of whom have expressed disdain for the disorder and surliness that pervade modern governance.

There may be more than coincidence at work with this seeming paradox. During a time when politics is defined by media saturation and relentless attacks, there is a premium on politicians who live by an ethic of constant self-control.

Hopeful thoughts.  As I’ve noted before, we could have a real chance this year to have an election between grownups.  While this certainly isn’t assured (remember the stilted political script and increasing antics of the McCain campaign last time?), at least there’s the possibility.

The possibility, among other things, that this election could be issue and policy focused, and beautifully BORING.  While the flap over Ann Romney’s work history remains illustrative of alternate narratives that continue to threaten rejection of importance matters for more popularly engaging ones, the Professor (Obama) and Thurston Howell III (Romney) can rise above it.

They just have to resist every built-in urge in the American political system, the power of a 24/7 media, and the passions of a sometimes less than focused electorate.

Have fun, gentlemen.

Enter the Silly Season

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.  As you’ve probably heard, a DNC advisor named Hilary Rosen has critiqued Ann Romney for “never [having] worked a day in her life.”  Mrs. Romney, rather bothered by this criticism, went on Twitter to affirm the importance of her decision to stay home and raise her family. Besides, raising five children can be a LOT of work, whether or not you ever get paid for it.  I don’t know all the details of the Romney’s childrearing efforts and how much childcare help they may have had, but opponents should be a little more careful before such bald attack.

In any case, I hope this isn’t the stuff we spend the next seven months arguing about.  While Rosen does have a point about the Romneys being out of step with most contemporary families (mine included), there are plenty of women who do stay home with their children and value that time.  There are also others who wish they had the opportunity to do so.

An interesting argument, but not something upon which we need to base a political campaign…on either side.  Because as MSNBC reminds us, pushback from those who want to defend Ann Romney and traditional motherhood will possibly boost the Romney campaign.

Never mind the actual issues.  Politics…the silly season, it seems, has begun.

Romney Ascendant: Does It Matter?

Another day, another Republican primary.  Three of them, actually: Washington, DC, Maryland, and Wisconsin.  Mitt Romney is counting on running the table today and ending Rick Santorum’s final hopes.  At this point he’s generally expected to do so, meaning that Romney as nominee is now all but a foregone conclusion.

Things don’t look so great in a Romney/Obama race right now, though.  Obama is not only tied or slightly ahead in a number of national head-to-head polls, but–more importantly–has vital leads in important battleground states as well.

All of this means something, but not everything at this point.  It means that right now neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is hated or loved by the vast majority of the American people.  It means that both men have been occupied with other matters (governing the nation and competing in the GOP primaries) until now.  The 2012 presidential campaign, in other words, has not really started yet.

That changes, I think, in the next month or so.  With victories today, Romney will be switching the bulk of his energies to developing a Fall strategy.  Obama has had a lot of time to think about how he’ll run, and it may be that yesterday’s salvo against the Supreme Court may be a hint of his strategy.

It is extremely early in this process, however.  The major issues at work in the nation today–some of which may look very different in November–may have a greater part in determining the eventual victor than any pre-set strategy.  Consider the following:

  • The Healthcare Debate:  It is in the hands of the Supreme Court right now, but only until June.  If they uphold the law and its mandate, the Obama administration will be relieved but forced to endure a withering Republican campaign aimed at repeal.  If, however, the Supreme Court jettisons the law all bets are off.  The Republicans will be enthused, but will not be able to run as strongly on the issue.  Obama seems set to run against the Court if needed, but if he does this the GOP may be even more emboldened to stop him.
  • The Economy:  It seems to slowly be getting better…but it still isn’t great.  If the pace of the improvement stalls or remains slow the advantage may well lean towards the GOP and its business-oriented nominee.  If the economy improves at an increased rate?  The conventional wisdom is that Obama’s reelection would then much easier.
  • Gas Prices: Tied to the economy, surely, but right now seemingly a separable issue.  For probably a number of reasons, the economy is moving forward even as gas prices have climbed to what seem to be nonsense levels.  Gas is REALLY expensive right now.  Without a change or slackening off in fuel costs, the GOP will have a clear issue with which they can take Obama to task.  Speeches filled with pipelines, drilling, and alternative energy sources may well be in our future.
  • Afghanistan:  Public support for the war is at a low ebb, and if Obama makes an uncharacteristic misstep here or events take an unfavorable turn, he could well be held responsible by voters.  Then again, the war wasn’t his idea (or Romney’s) so he may get a pass here.
  • Iran:  A real wildcard in international politics and this presidential election.  Tied up into this are Americans’ opinions about the military, the state of Israel, our dependence on oil, and other issues.  Iran’s actions over the next few months may have a lot of impact on who Americans turn to for leadership in an uncertain future.  If things stay the same as they are now, however, Obama is likely favored.

Social issues like abortion or gay marriage may not figure very prominently in this year’s campaign rhetoric, and I suspect that–barring a full-on Obama war on the Supreme Court–debate about them won’t be as pointed as during some other elections.

As always, we will see…