Demand a presidential campaign of substance
Game on.
Or perhaps that’s exactly the wrong metaphor. As President Barack Obama prepares to officially launch his re-election campaign Saturday and as Mitt Romney ramps up his campaign pre-convention, the last thing many voters want is a “game.”
Concerned Americans want less about presidential dogs, less about birth certificates and less about second-home car elevators.
They, and we, want substance.
We want serious discussions about health care, entitlements, defense spending, deficits, jobs, foreign policy and education.
Four years ago, the country was wounded. The banking system was faltering, conflicts abroad were not going well, federal deficits were high, and health care costs and the number of uninsured were rising.
Today, almost four years into Obama’s presidency, the threat of economic meltdown has been averted. But unemployment remains high, deficits are higher, Social Security and Medicare face even sooner fiscal implosions, and taxes are still unfair and too complicated.
Here are campaign discussions worth having:
Health care
While Romney and Obama may want to avoid this topic at all costs, the two actually are a good pair to fully debate the costly issue.
Americans spend more on health care than other nations, but outcomes are not tops, and in some ways, not even middling. Both men have wisely supported access to insurance, elimination of pre-existing conditions as a too-high hurdle, and an everybody-in approach. We’d like to see both return to heralding all of these priorities.
The Affordable Care Act has helped families already and it’s not fully implemented until 2014. Coverage for children up to age 26 has helped protect young adults in school or job hunting. Pilot projects with competitive bidding for health supplies like wheelchairs are saving money in Medicare.
Can the current act be improved? Of course, and we’d like to hear details from both candidates on how they propose to control the rising cost of health care before the boomers get any older and need even more care. Portable, affordable health insurance policies, unlinked from employers, would do a world of good. How would each accomplish that feat?
Economy
Things are better than four years ago. But not nearly good enough. Obama fought for and won more consumer protections on the financial industry. Romney is the anti-regulation candidate, and he must explain why unleashed from new regs, banks and investment houses would operate better and safer.
The biggest disappointment we have with the president is his unwillingness to embrace the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, which calls for spending cuts and revenue increases. The bipartisan plan, an Obama initiative, deserves a full public airing with both candidates clearly staking out their positions on the recommendations.
As a campaigner, Obama wanted to lift the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax. If he is serious about taxing the rich and securing Social Security, he should go for it again.
Which candidate will step forward to offer a real bipartisan compromise on taxes? That man will win votes.
The need for more jobs for Americans will be the subject of much debate. We want to hear a good case from Obama for a federal jobs program to rebuild infrastructure, and a good case from Romney on how lower taxes could spur job growth and business confidence.
Foreign policy
Obama can rightly claim to have improved America’s world image. The adoring crowds in Germany of four years ago may be less enthusiastic, but on many world fronts, the hatred toward America is lower and respect is higher.
To his credit, Obama has supported a wind-down in Iraq, a planned wind-down in Afghanistan, the successful raid and killing of most-wanted Osama bin Laden and support for Arab Spring movements. But his positions on Syria, Iran, North Korea and other repressive, threatening nations still need to be more fully clarified and compared with Romney’s views.
Romney’s far-too-hostile talk on foreign policy during the contested GOP primaries needs to be recalibrated if he wants to be a respected world leader of the future. Romney has to build his foreign policy credentials with voters.
Campaigning
Romney still has to choose a vice presidential candidate, and his public “dating” with contenders is a welcome open window into his selection process. He won’t make the mistake John McCain did with a wild card who was wildly popular among some in the GOP but also wildly unprepared for the Oval Office. Romney and the nation need a veep candidate who is smart, prepared, serious and a solid potential free-world leader should the worst happen.
In what everyone expects will be a brutal, nasty campaign, with an avalanche of anonymous donors slinging mud in political ads, Americans can make it clear to both camps that we want something different. That means frank, detailed, even nuanced conversations about the vexing issues ahead.
Go for the high road. It’s time.
Mark Hastert
1 year agoWe’ve never had a high road and we’ll never have a high road. Candidates have been smearing each other since Washington. How about we encourage and inquiring knowledgeable electorate smart enough to look past the half truths and outright lies of commission and omission?
Phil Cardarella
1 year agoOne reason for the non-issue campaigns is that the media encourage it.
Face it, the main-stream media are terrified of stating objective facts. Instead, we get “he said, he said” — with no one bothering to point out what is actually, objectively true. No candidate pays a price for supporting untruths and half-truths.
When 99% of scientists state that carbon fuels are harming the earth and 1% (paid by the carbon fuel industry) disagree, the media treat this as an actual scientific controversy, for fear of appearing unbalanced. DUH!
If a candidate dismisses evolution as “merely a theory”, the media treat this as a reasoned position — instead of the anti-scientific hogwash that it is. )And, by the way, the sun does not revolve around the earth.)
They refer to candidates as anti-abortion (as if anyone were pro-abortion) instead of anti-choice.
Treating two sides of an argument as if either were equally rational is NOT good journalism when one is objectively, verifiably wrong.
But, that does explain why it is easier to argue about dogs tied to rooftops.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoMark, I agree with you completely. Hey, we found something on which we can agree!!!
And the Star seems to be stepping forward with a serious, responsible and civil approach.
Does that mean Yael will stop referencing a war on women?
Welllllll, I guess it was all a dream now, wasn’t it.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoToo late EB, you showed your true desire for “substance” a mere 4 years ago when you and the rest of the lsm choose to not vet our beloved community organzier aka the big 0.
You do make some great parodies however. Keep up the chuckles…..
Brian Mundell
1 year agoRead phil’s post above for an example of why it is this way, he thinks his beliefs are the facts. Define “harm the earth”? Because it used to be causes global warming, after it was going to cause an ice age, you prove the point of the other side. Why are some of the formally dirtiest rivers and lakes now among the cleanest? Evolution has too many holes for a lot of people but for those who think that humans can understand everything, it is an easy way to believe. Finally, many of us believe there should be no federal laws regarding abortion, and that choice involves all involved parties, not just one.
The deaf and blind on both sides, like phil, ensure that things will continue, however I believe them to be marginalized over time. But we shall see.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoPhil……how many times have you seen the main stream media refer to one side as the “anti abortion”? I mean this. How many times. Can you reproduce that in any meaningful way?
The main stream media always refers to them as pro choice.
Kent Mueller
1 year agoI don’t think my sarcasm worked. I need to stay straight with what I say!!
Brandon Lewis
1 year agoI’m looking forward to the Presidential debates where the candidates will be asked directly their stance on such issues as health care, foreign policy, immigration, women’s health and so forth.
There will be less room to wiggle