http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-Re-elect-Obama-3985242.php
Chronicle recommends: Re-elect Obama
'Obama's leadership has had a stabilizing effect on the economy and on foreign policy. One thing is certain: While challenges remain, the White House is in wiser, steadier hands than it was four years ago.'
Four years ago, candidate Barack Obama projected an optimistic aura of possibility for a nation that was mired in two wars and watching its economy teeter on the brink of collapse. His promise of hope and change has been tempered by the magnitude of the mess he inherited, the surprises and partisan blockade he confronted - and, in some cases, the opportunities he missed to apply his political capital to big issues of our times.
Still, by most measures, this nation is better off than it was four years ago. The economy is still struggling, but is showing signs of recovery - and new safeguards are in place to restrain the Wall Street recklessness that nearly led us to disaster. The U.S. auto industry is back from the abyss. One war has ended, and the other is winding down. A health care overhaul promises to bring coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
President Obama has disappointed some partisans on the left with his hawkishness on foreign affairs and his willingness to compromise on fiscal issues. Partisans on the right routinely sound the alarm at what they are convinced is Obama's dedication to a big government that will suffocate the free markets and individual liberties that have defined this nation.
Neither critique captures the essence of the Obama presidency. This nation needed - and received - a steady, measured president who is neither beholden to ideological dogma nor fearful of taking risks for what is right. This is a president who was willing to send Navy SEALs on a daring mission to kill terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and to take a stand for marriage equality. This is a Democrat who will push against the party base for trade agreements and education reform.
Critics can justifiably point to the lack of discipline in the $787 billion stimulus program and the sheer weight and regulatory meddling of the Affordable Care Act. But unemployment and access to health care were undeniably reaching a crisis point without government intervention - and Obama's leadership helped push these measures, however imperfect, through a polarized Capitol.
Our main problem with Obama is that he has not made a priority of four issues that should transcend party lines: climate change, comprehensive immigration reform, the soaring national deficit and the long-term sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. Those issues, along with a revamping of the impossibly complex and convoluted tax code, must be among his priorities if elected to a second term. Progress on any of them will require far greater bipartisanship than we saw in his first term. Yes, there are Republicans who seemed hell-bent to stymie him at every turn. But he's the president - his job is to set the tone.
Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, offers no better course on any of those critical issues. He openly mocked concern about global warming during his convention speech, he has danced and dodged on the tough points of immigration policy, proposed tax and spending policies that will expand the deficit, and effectively avoided any meaningful proposals to keep the entitlement programs solvent.
The three presidential debates - as well as the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan - have presented Americans with real choices that go beyond the platitudes and the dispiriting negativity that has dominated the ad wars. The lines on the social issues are clearly drawn: The Obama administration would continue its course of expanding gay rights and preserving women's access to abortion and contraception.
Perhaps the biggest distinction between the two is their contrasting views on the size and role of government. Romney has called for a smaller, more streamlined federal government that delegates more safety-net responsibilities to the states. He has called for deep cuts in nondefense discretionary spending - though he is vague about where he might find those savings, aside from his sound-bite shots at Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting. He would count on tax cuts and regulation relief to spur economic growth.
Obama possesses a more traditional Democratic view that government has a role, indeed a duty, to provide ladders of opportunity. Such sensibility is important in this era of widening gap between rich and poor in this nation. He rightly observes that the middle class has taken a beating in the Great Recession - and its purchasing power is vital to a healthy economy.
On foreign policy, one measure of the effectiveness of Obama's stewardship was how relatively modestly it was challenged by Romney in Monday's final debate. Obama's approach of enlisting allies to tighten the vise of sanctions on Iran has vindicated one of the mantras of his 2008 campaign: Pursuit of international cooperation is not a sign of weakness, it is a way to advance U.S. interests. But he also showed the courage and wisdom to fulfill another campaign promise in acting unilaterally to pursue bin Laden at his sanctuary in Pakistan.
Romney's myriad transformations leave Americans wondering exactly what they would get if he were elected president. Absence of a consistent core is an unsettling proposition for a leader who would guide everything from war and the economy to Supreme Court appointments that could shape its direction for a generation.
Obama's leadership has had a stabilizing effect on the economy and on foreign policy. One thing is certain: While challenges remain, the White House is in wiser, steadier hands than it was four years ago.
President Obama should be re-elected.
