Endorsement: The case for Mitt Romney for president [The Daily Herald, Arlington Heights IL]

Here, finally, we are. After months of seemingly endless campaigning, we arrive at the last few days of the race for the White House. After all that campaigning, many have openly wondered how anyone could still be undecided. We’re not among those who wonder. We believe the choice for president in 2012 is both difficult and profound. Whomever is elected will be trusted in large measure with the fate of a stumbling economy, a foreboding debt crisis, a gridlocked government and an unstable world.

But now after weeks of debate and reflection, and a good amount of uncertainty on our own part along the way, we have reached our decision. What we would give in this troubled time for certainty, for inspiration, for the exhilaration that Barack Obama aroused in so much of America four years ago.

Here’s what we believe: We believe that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are good and decent men who care about the country. We believe each possesses extraordinary skills and talent. But, philosophically, it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.

In endorsing Illinois’ favorite son in 2008, we declared Obama “has a chance to be a great president.” We said, “He offers a new kind of politics. A politics that breaks down the old partisan walls. A politics that strives to bring people together. A politics of hope.”

There is no doubt that as president, Obama has recorded some significant achievements, some even historic. Even his adversaries have embraced some. He’s ended the war in Iraq, passed landmark health care legislation, opened the door toward civil rights for the gay community — all notable accomplishments.

But four years later, where is the hope? Where is the confident swagger and leadership to uplift the nation’s mood?

In that endorsement editorial four years ago, we described the landscape of America thusly: “Our country is polarized, our politics is unduly partisan and out of touch and our economy is on the brink of the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression.”

Today, our country is still polarized, our politics is still partisan, our economy slugs along painfully on one of the slowest recoveries in history and the country’s debt threatens our future and the future of our children.

How much of this should be laid at the feet of Barack Obama is difficult to say. The challenges to the country and to his leadership have been formidable, perhaps to an unprecedented level. The incessant hyperbolic-politics-as-entertainment drumbeat exacts a price in polarization that few presidents could overcome. The historic intransigence of a sizable bloc of Republicans in Congress has contributed mightily to the partisanship. Likewise, the debt has not been imposed by Obama alone. Republicans helped build it, and the failure of both sides to foster a constructive, bipartisan response has helped maintain and grow it. Both sides have embraced ideologies that don’t fit today’s overwhelming challenges, which must be met through moderation, consensus and collaboration.

Yet, in all these areas, Obama cannot escape the burden of his share of culpability.

At a time when the economy was wracked, he chose instead to focus on health care reform. In doing so, his administration chose early on to fight with Congress rather than to work with it. He chose to force his landmark health care bill through Congress without a single Republican vote, significantly contributing to the bitter atmosphere of division in Washington.

His economic initiatives have been heavily bent toward the public sector, a big spending approach that has been aptly derided by Romney as “trickle-down government.”

And however well intended his belief that the Bush tax cuts should be ended for upper-income brackets, his $250,000 benchmark has been remarkably low, as many two-income families and small business owners and others in the suburbs can attest.

More pointedly, we are disappointed in the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.

In fact, call it wordsmithing if you like, but we think both Obama and Romney would better serve the country if they exercised more precision in their references to the so-called middle class.

We prefer the characterization espoused by Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that often is at odds with us on issues. “All this talk about the ‘middle class’ is wrong and divisive,” Bast said. “America is not a class society. We are an opportunity society. Middle-income people today are likely to be lower-income or upper-income people in just a few years, based on the choices they make.”

This is a point, unfortunately, that seems to be lost on President Obama, and ultimately, the point where we must break with him.

Mitt Romney is not a perfect candidate, and we have our share of concerns about him. We’re not the first to point out that his vacillation, in particular, has been troubling, while we understand the primary-election necessity to appeal to a conservative core of Republican voters.

But ultimately, we endorse Romney because he, unlike Obama, understands that jobs are a creation of business, not of government. And that to encourage job growth, we need policies that incent business to grow and provide it with a stable environment for that growth....... [continued at source linked above]

Panel talks politics with Daily Herald subscribers
By Jamie Sotonoff

A panel of political experts weighed in on topics ranging from media biases to why the suburbs are a major political battleground during a presentation Wednesday night at Roosevelt University in Schaumburg.

The two-hour event also featured a lot of storytelling, as panelists shared entertaining tales of their memorable moments and favorite interviews.

The panel discussion was one in a series of Daily Herald Subscriber Total Access events which puts subscribers face-to-face with the columnists, writers, photographers and newsmakers they read about every day.

Moderated by quick-witted political pundit and radio commentator Paul Green, the panel included Daily Herald Political Editor Kerry Lester, Daily Herald Assistant Managing Editor/Opinion Page Jim Slusher, former Daily Herald Executive Editor Madeleine Doubek (now chief operating officer for Reboot Illinois), and former political reporter and Roosevelt University Presidential Writer in Residence Charles Madigan.

The panelists acknowledged that a liberal media bias exists but said newspapers guard strongly against it in their stories and insist on a balanced approach to both sides of an issue. Slusher noted that most newspaper companies have both biases under one roof, noting the Daily Herald has endorsed both conservative Republican Peter Roskam and liberal Democrat Jan Schakowsky.

“How you rate an individual or publication depends on where you stand, with your own politics,” Slusher said. “There’s an absolute insistence on being fair ... to the point of making sure all sides are heard for every story. Does that make us liberal? I don’t think so. The Daily Herald is neither liberal nor conservative, but our goal is for them to be better educated and better voters.”

The discussion also turned to why the suburbs have become such a hot political battleground, both statewide and nationally. Lester said it’s a combination of the suburban demographics and the state legislative maps, giving the suburbs a high number of swing voters.

“Aside from parts of DuPage County, you don’t have really solid Republican areas or real solid Democrat areas,” she said.

Green said suburban women, in particular, are posing a real challenge for Republicans because of issues like abortion, gun control and contraception.

The night included reminiscing about old politicians like James “Pate” Philip and Jack Kemp, the story-spinning campaign staffers try to pull over on reporters, and questions from the audience on current topics like fact-checking (“one of the great new features in journalism,” Doubek said) and political polling (“They rarely mean anything,” Madigan said).

“The smartest people are the ones who run the campaigns,” Green said. “You spin and you spin and you spin.”

Green appreciated the friendly, open-minded tone to the evening, saying, “Compared to Walsh-Duckworth debate, (this) is a walk in the park.”

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121017/news/710179666/print/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.