If there’s a consensus to be made among voters of all persuasions, it’s that the end to this Presidential campaign can’t come soon enough. In a little over 12 hours, barring a recount in a battleground state that decides the election, we’ll know who will be President of the United States. As the polls open and voters cast their ballots, we here at LXBN are looking back at our Network’s election coverage, with an eye towards lies ahead under either candidate’s administration.
While both President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney made it clear that getting the economy back on the fast-track to recovery was their primary goal, several other issues moonlighted as the topic de jour. From foreign policy to immigration, these secondary issues played a role in showing the differences between the two candidates. One such issue was how both campaigns planned to handle health care, with a particular focus on Medicare. Shortly after Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan accepted the Vice-Presidential nomination, David Pursell wondered what would happen to the program if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was repealed or restructured under a Romney-Ryan administration:
“Last week, Paul Ryan accepted the nomination for Vice President. In his acceptance speech, he cited “Obamacare” as the greatest threat to Medicare, but many hospitals view the expansion of coverage for low-income individuals positively. More and more community hospitals are urging their state governments to accept payments for expanded Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because they are concerned about the financial impact of rejecting the expansion.”
Although Romney consistently hammered Obama over what he called a “$718 million cut in Medicare” (a fact which has been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers), other issues continued to crop up.
In the second debate, Romney was asked by an audience member what his plans were for undocumented workers already in America. Nataliya Binshteyn, a lawyer with GreenbergTraurig and contributor to the firm’s Immigration Compliance blog, transcribed the exchange here. One line of Romney’s response caught the attention of immigration lawyers. Angelo Paparelli sheds some light on the story over on Nation of Immigrators:
Another remark, however, prompted intense reactions among immigration lawyers:
“[You] shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally.”
Within minutes of the debate’s end, a Facebook group, “Immigration Education for Mitt Romney,” sprang into existence. The group’s “About” tab describes its raison d’être: “Since Mitt Romney seems to think that immigration law & policy can be simple, as he stated during the Presidential debate on 10-16-2012, we need to educate Mr. Romney about immigration law & policy.”
Paparelli went on to say that even if new laws weren’t as complex as they are today, lawyers should still be involved in the immigration process:
“If, miraculously, the laws and procedures were simplified, I would still recommend (accusations of self-serving behavior notwithstanding) that all but the most simple and clearly deserving requests for legal immigration benefits should be pursued only with competent legal representation and counsel. Even the seemingly simple benefits program, DACA, requires help from an experienced immigration lawyer, as Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Luis Gutierrez apparently have learned by now. “
Even though both answers by the candidates were restrained, it did illustrate the contrasts between Obama and Romney on this controversial topic. These differences are translating into huge gains for Obama, who, if the polling numbers are to be trusted, has a commanding lead of 50 points among Latino voters.
But while immigration played a central role in 2008, questions of government spending and the regulation of businesses took center stage for most of this campaign. Brad Hammock discusses one regulatory body that may be in for some changes under a new administration:
“With the presidential election just a few days away, there is a lot of uncertainty on the future direction of OSHA. If President Obama wins a second term, employers should expect to see a more active OSHA from the regulatory perspective, as many rules that could impact the employers are poised to be published in either proposed or final form after the election. From an enforcement perspective, employers should expect to see the same level of active OSHA enforcement in a second-term Obama presidency. If Governor Romney wins the election, some of the regulatory initiatives currently in the pipeline may be slowed or even scrapped, but undoubtedly some will be proposed or finalized. Enforcement should also continue at high levels, although some of the enforcement procedures and targeting programs of the Obama administration may be changed.”
Suspiciously absent from most of the attack ads and rhetoric of stump speeches was discussion of international issues. There was, however, one punching bag that made headlines time and time again: China. Between Romney promising to declare China a currency manipulator and Obama outlining successes in challenging their unfair trade practices, it would be easy to forget the People’s Republic remains one of our largest trade partners.
Elliot Feldman, the leader of Baker Hostetler‘s international trade practice, provided an in-depth analysis of the candidates’ stance on Chinese foreign relations, focusing on the remarks made in the third debate between Romney and Obama. Here are some of his thoughts as to what Sino-American relations would look like under either administration, starting with Romney:
“By the end of the second presidential debate there was reason to believe that a Romney presidency would cast China as a cold war adversary, changing course from the sophistication of the Obama Administration balancing many Asian and global interests. In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the Romney strategy has been to seem more experienced by seeming to endorse Obama’s foreign policies. The strategy is designed to reassure Americans that a change in the White House would not mean a radical change in foreign policy.”
Followed by an analysis of what four more years of President Obama’s approach would hold:
“f there be a change in course in the Obama view of China during the campaign, it has been to harden positions, but then the 2008 campaign was full of rhetoric about NAFTA that never meant anything for the Obama presidency. China is an almost inevitable target, both because of the international relations principle of identifying a foreign foe, and because China is a soft target in what Americans see as the zero-sum game of jobs. For Obama, protecting the U.S. economy against China – using whatever legal weapons may be in the arsenal – is foremost a campaign necessity designed to reassure Americans that the economy, and employment in particular, are the President’s leading priorities.”
And with the third debate over, both candidates were free to return to the campaign trail. A road they had worn down with the weary feet of volunteers and supporters.
In January of this year, Iowa’s Republican caucus gave Rick Santorum a victory over Mitt Romney by the skin of his teeth. Santorum would later drop out of the race, as would the rest of the former front-runners for the GOP Presidential nomination. If the topsy-turvy start to this race has taught us one thing, it’s that premature prognostication is a fool’s game. However, as the nation prepares to enter the polling booth, it’s important to remember that each candidate offers an obviously different vision for the next four years. As Paparelli put it this weekend as he was wrapping up his traditional Sunday post:
I hope as we enter the “other . . . dimension” of the voting booth, “a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind,” that we are not entranced into reflexive thinking about “the so-called real world of men and money and power [which] hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self.” Although our “present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom,” I hope we remember that elections trigger consequences, and that precious lives and futures depend on our choices.
To read more election coverage from LXBN authors, check out our tagged page on Election 2012.