Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts
Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the
presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in
Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his
adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for
business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our
largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.
But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing
Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal,
and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that
make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney
managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a
showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that
told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its
people.
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his
campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his
servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and
now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee.
From his embrace of the
party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a
moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most
frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and
what in the world does he truly believe?"
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at
least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite.
Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney,
though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any
words, they would trade their votes to hear.
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.
If this portrait of a Romney willing to say
anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding
of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel
victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a
group of wealthy donors, "is not to worry about those people. I’ll never
convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for
their lives."
Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive
Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model
health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory?
That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.
And what of the president Romney would
replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with
varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst
financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he
inherited the day he took office.
In the first months of his presidency, Obama
acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential
to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it
clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah
Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in
the state’s budget.
The president also acted wisely to bail out
the auto industry, which has since come roaring back. Romney, in so many
words, said the carmakers should sink if they can’t swim.
Obama’s most noteworthy achievement, passage
of his signature Affordable Care Act, also proved, in its timing, his
greatest blunder. The set of comprehensive health insurance reforms
aimed at extending health care coverage to all Americans was signed 14
months into his term after a ferocious fight in Congress that sapped the
new president’s political capital and destroyed any chance for
bipartisan cooperation on the shredded economy.
Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his
strongest suit, especially compared to Romney’s bellicose posture toward
Russia and China and his inflammatory rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear
weapons program. Obama’s measured reliance on tough economic embargoes
to bring Iran to heel, and his equally measured disengagement from the
war in Afghanistan, are examples of a nuanced approach to international
affairs. The glaring exception, still unfolding, was the
administration’s failure to protect the lives of the U.S. ambassador to
Libya and three other Americans, and to quickly come clean about it.
In considering which candidate to endorse, The
Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit
the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and
inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago.
Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then
tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of
presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail
and worthy of mistrust.
Therefore, our endorsement must go to the
incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the
country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is
pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term.
Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
