Hartford Courant backs Obama

Taking office as the economy was cratering, facing two wars and other crises abroad, and being fought at every turn by determined congressional Republicans has tested President Barack Obama.

The president has passed those tests, though not without leaving skin on the sidewalk. He can look back at a solid, if not remarkable, record of accomplishment that earns this Democrat our endorsement for a second term over Republican Mitt Romney.

No, Mr. Obama didn’t change the culture of Washington, if "culture" is the right word. He made some mistakes, disappointed many. But as Paul Glastris observed in Washington Monthly earlier this year, Mr. Obama looks good when compared to other presidents.

Why Mr. Obama?

The record starts with health care reform. The Affordable Care Act will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014, regardless of pre-existing conditions. That families will no longer face destitution because of serious illness is a major step forward for our society.

Mr. Obama took a number of steps to get the moribund economy moving again, including the $787 billion stimulus package, Wall Street re-regulation and recapitalization of major banks (at no cost to the government). The U.S. economy is growing, although slowly — unlike Europe’s. It took nearly two decades to end America’s Great Depression; the second coming of FDR wouldn’t end this one overnight, either.

In other areas such as pay equity for women and quick response to the Gulf oil spill, Mr. Obama and his congressional allies have improved the lives of countless Americans.

He has even been creative in how money is spent. Instead of using the old block grant formula, Mr. Obama started the Race to the Top program with $4.35 billion in stimulus funds to reward innovative reform in education. Failure to win one of these grants was one of the spurs to Connecticut’s education reform program.

In foreign affairs — with the disturbing exception of the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya — Mr. Obama has a mostly good record, one characterized more by partnership with allies than unilateral action. U.S. troops are out of Iraq, thankfully, and the American war in Afghanistan is winding down. No American lives were lost in the ouster of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. As Sen. John Kerry said, Osama bin Laden is not better off than he was four years ago.

Mr. Obama is following the right path in Iran. Some wars can be prevented by diplomacy. Mr. Obama is trying, with allies in the region and elsewhere, to bring Iran into the world community without a nuclear weapon. His style contrasts sharply with the "bring it on" bravado of his predecessor.

Mr. Obama is far from faultless, of course. He has waffled on same-sex marriage and now supports it. He took his time repealing "don’t ask, don’t tell." Some were upset that he kept the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduced their estate taxes. He’s not getting out of Afghanistan fast enough for many. He dropped the public option from health care reform.

But the nation has kept out of recession and is disengaging from two wars. Those are considerable achievements.

Why Not Mr. Romney?

Mr. Romney is a skilled manager, as evidenced by his success in business and his remarkable rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics (with federal help). But a leader is different: It is someone with core principles moving toward a positive goal.

Mr. Romney’s positions have changed often on many issues. It is hard to know what his principles are, beyond wanting to be president. He says his goal is jobs.

He was a moderate and successful one-term governor of Massachusetts a decade ago. We admired his management of state agencies and the passage of a near-universal health insurance program that became the model for the Affordable Care Act. But during his presidential campaign, he favored a state-by-state approach and said he would repeal the ACA.

If Mr. Romney really believes that 47 per cent of Americans are entitlement slackers, or that no one dies from lack of health insurance, his disconnect from most of the country is profound.

Mr. Romney proposes a tax cut but is short with details on how to pay for it. His position on a woman’s right to choose has been all over the lot and should give female voters pause.

In short, Mr. Romney does not make a convincing case to, as Abraham Lincoln said, swap horses in the middle of the stream.

—McClatchy Tribune Services