Editor:
President Obama has led the country for the last four years with proficiency he seems to be a competent manager, respectful in pursuit of compromise, and a skilled statesman. Unfortunately, our system of fundraising and media coverage rewards extremism and undermines pragmatism. Obamas apparent unwillingness to play the role of extremist has had the effect of making him appear ineffective. Weve finally elected a leader who is willing to address important issues, and who has managed affairs fairly well given the alarmingly shaky structure of our political system, but all we can do is to heap upon him all manner of strange criticisms. Heck, the guy hasnt started any new wars, and these days, the republic should elect him on that alone.
The criticisms of Obama themselves show that we are desperate in our wanting. The NRA criticizes him for high gas prices, not gun control. Free-market conservatives criticize him for allowing a sell-off of Chrysler to an Italian company. (Should the government run it?) The populist element of the Tea Party, after bemoaning Obamas use of Wall Street insiders, appears ready to elect a venture capitalist worth $200 million. Why?
One thing that is clear is that policy is off the table in this election. I, for one, will vote for Obama because I see him as a competent, level-headed manager. Sure, hes pretty boring sometimes, but out of the universe of candidates, I know he is most likely to enact policies that will keep us safe and prosperous. The last time we tried casino-style economics it didnt work out so good for most of us. And when someone like Romney promises to ease regulations on business, you can be sure hes not talking about our mom-and-pops.
If Obama is sometimes deficient, lets re-elect him and pressure him to change. That seems like a much better bet to me than putting a gambler in charge.
Ole Bye
Mancos
Via email
