MUCH OF THE 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing.
That second question will come rushing at the winner as soon as the votes are tallied. Absent any action, a series of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect Jan. 1 that might well knock the country back into recession. This will be a moment of peril but also of opportunity. How the president-elect navigates it will go a long way toward determining the success of his presidency and the health of the nation.
President Barack Obama is better positioned to be that navigator than is his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
more
_____
La Opinion:
In the face of fierce opposition, the President managed to pass a health care bill that will extend benefits to many in our community. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, adds nine million Latinos currently without coverage to the health care rolls – a life-saving boost for a community that suffers the highest uninsured rates in the country._____
The very idea of repealing this law, which Romney proposed, is nonsense.
On health care, there is also a big difference between both candidates when it comes to women's reproductive health. With Romney, women are at risk of losing access to important services in employer-provided health insurance, like the option to make decisions about their bodies and health.
Unemployment remains above the national average for Hispanics. However, since February 2009, this rate dropped from 11.1% to 9.9%. Obama has taken critical steps, such as investing billions of dollars in community colleges and job training programs that help Latinos access better jobs.
The President recognizes the needs of our community and the brilliance of the sons and daughter we put forward. His historic appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is the brightest example of this.
Northwest Asian Weekly:
During this week’s debate, Mitt Romney got a few things right about President Obama. Obama promised to reform the United States’ immigration policies during his first term. He hasn’t. He promised to improve the economy and cut down the deficit. He failed to meet his goals. At best, he scores a C+ on the economy._____
But Obama has shown that he does want to do what’s best for America. Four years ago, it was dangerous for an American abroad to say that they were American. Now, being “American” is no longer a slur.
If there is anything Obama is guilty of, it’s being too ambitious during his first term. He lost his way a bit during the healthcare debate and saw many of his strongest allies elected out of Congress, but that has given insight. He refocused his vision. And being too ambitious is never a bad thing if you work hard.
The Austin Chronicle urges voters to vote straight Democratic:
Few Chronicle readers will be surprised that we are endorsing the president's re-election, but we still wish to note our reasoning here. We've had our differences with some of Obama's policies – especially his still-reflexive extension of U.S. military power abroad (e.g., the use of high-tech warfare in undeclared wars) and his willingness to maintain unconstitutional abuse of legal rights (as in Guantánamo). But his administration has kept its commitments to bring to an end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has also moved forward in health care, equal rights, and rebuilding the economy, despite relentless and destructively partisan Republican opposition to every administration initiative, without regard to the common welfare. An Obama presidency would maintain institutional leverage and public space for progressive political action on behalf of labor groups, human and civil rights activism, women's rights, and basic social services, including national health care. A Romney presidency would roll all these back to the Bush era, would substitute saber-rattling and threats for even the slightest movements toward cooperative diplomacy, all the while granting even more of a stranglehold to the U.S. financial and corporate interests determined to dominate the future of the republic._____
Madison's Capital Times:
Ultimately, however, the corruption of our elections, and of our governance, touches all issues.
It remains every bit as central today as it was a century ago, when Robert M. La Follette announced: “The supreme issue, involving all the others, is the encroachment of the few upon the rights of the many.”
The Supreme Court has codified that encroachment. In so doing, it has created a fundamental threat to democracy. Romney would extend that threat, making it a permanent and debilitating reality. Obama proposes to address the threat.
He would act aggressively, even amend the constitution, in order to defend democracy. That is the right stance today, as it was in La Follette’s day, because it remains true: “Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men (and women) must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from men (and women) who are aggressive for what is wrong.”
No comments:
Post a Comment