Why Obama Deserves to Lose

One-party governance followed by a year of gridlock does not merit a second term

  • Share
  • Read Later
Hieronymus for TIME

(2 of 2)

Obama's economic policies have been a farrago of the absurd ("cash for clunkers"), the ineffectual (pick your housing program) and the monumentally misconceived (a stimulus that discredited the word stimulus). He has presided over $1 trillion deficits every year he's been in office, and his Treasury Secretary admits the Administration has no plan to deal with the debt. He wants to impose a punishing round of tax increases next year on what will probably still be a fragile economy. His signature health care law is constitutionally dubious and persistently unpopular. It adds another financially unsustainable entitlement on top of the ones that we already had and that the President has demonstrated no serious interest in reforming.

Rather than uniting the country, he has polarized it. The first half of his term featured partisan governance, the second half bipartisan gridlock. The public rejected the former and is equally unenthused about the latter. A reasonably competent Republican can beat him. As it happens, that is exactly what front runner Mitt Romney is--no more, no less.

In an era of economic discontent, it would be better if Republicans weren't likely to nominate a former titan of private equity with overseas bank accounts. He leaves the white working class as cold as the President does. But Romney has proved capable of running a large organization and has a rsum worthy of the presidency. He has appeal for suburbanites and moderates. For all his gaffes, he's inoffensive and nonthreatening. His greatest asset is his sheer acceptability should voters decide they want to fire Obama.

Romney is not formidable, but neither is the President. Game on.

Lowry is the editor of National Review

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. Next Page