Plain Dealer, mistrusting Romney, endorses Obama

Mitt Romney had a chance with them, but he blew it.

The Plain Dealer's editorial board endorses President Obama in today's paper, ripping Romney for foreign-policy "bluster," a "lack of policy details," and "frequent changes" in positions. "Which Romney would [voters] elect?" the paper asks.

The board was "sorely tempted to endorse Gov. Romney this fall," the piece says -- but the editorial, clearly written by committee, resists the temptation. The pro-Obama argument dominates 12 paragraphs, compared to 6 for Romney.

What happened?  The Republican convention, the debates, and Libya. Also, Obama's careful talk about Iran, delivered to the PD in person.

You could see the paper's editorial writers pretty much give up on Romney in September. After his convention speech, they complained he was too vague about his tax and budget plans and how he'd replace Obama's health care law.  When Romney blasted Obama right after the Libya and Egypt embassy attacks, the page declared he'd botched the facts and "flunked" a test of his character and ability to be commander-in-chief.

Romney's sudden move to the center in the first debate may have caught Obama off guard and impressed swing voters, but it didn't impress the editors. They cited "the reborn moderate of recent weeks" as yet another example of Romney's shape-shifting.

Before September, I didn't expect this.  I thought the Plain Dealer, which swung right to endorse John Kasich and Issue 2, might keep angling right and go for Romney.

But only a few paragraphs of today's editorial seem to bear the stamp of publisher Terry Egger, a Republican who pushed a liberal editorial page to the center in his previous job in St. Louis.  The pro-Obama grafs read like the work of editorial page editor Elizabeth Sullivan, a foreign-policy expert who wrote scathing critiques of the Iraq war. She knows that, even though domestic issues decide most elections, presidents have the most power over foreign policy, war and peace.

The president shrewdly courted the PD's endorsement. He granted the editorial board an interview before his September speech in Kent, spending an hour with them in the Kent State basketball coach's office.

Likely well-briefed on Sullivan's interests and opinions, Obama gave her a clear answer about his position on Iran: Basically, he'll attack Iran just before it actually builds a nuclear weapon, but not earlier.  Sullivan made that conversation into one of the best pieces I've read about Iran's nuclear program, a column that ought to be required reading on a national level.

Obama's measured responses to Iran and the latest Mideast turmoil reaped rewards with the PD. "Romney's tendency to bluster on foreign policy provides more cause for doubt," the editorial reads. "The United States cannot afford to be drawn into new wars without clear national interests at stake.... Obama has showed that he favors engagement over bluster."

Newspaper endorsements don't matter as much as they used to; there are fewer newspaper readers and undecided voters today. But this endorsement mattered to Obama, and he got it.

Kucinich convinces House to vote on Libya

Dennis Kucinich might be a gadfly, an "outlier," a radical solo act in Congress, but you can't say he's ignored. Not after today, when the House is finally, belatedly, debating the war in Libya.

Right now, the House is debating Kucinich's bill that would force President Obama to end U.S. participation in the NATO air strikes in Libya in 15 days. It's also debating House Speaker John Boehner's hastily written alternative, which calls on Obama to justify the operation to Congress and prohibits introducing American ground troops. Votes are set on both bills today.

It's a major shift from a few weeks ago, when Congress looked ready to give up on the War Powers Act with barely a whimper. The controversial 1973 law says presidents have to stop military actions after 60 days if they don't get approval from Congress. No president has ignored the War Powers Act like Obama has with Libya. The 60 days came and went last month, with hardly anyone in Congress raising a fuss.

But Kucinich pushed ahead with his bill, which started attracting a surprising amount of support from Republicans ready to stand up for Congress' power to declare war. Take a look at this Washington Post story on the Libya bills, which calls Kucinich "one of Congress' perennial outliers," but says his bill attracted "much broader support than expected."

Boehner almost found himself outflanked. He had to pull Kucinich's bill off the House floor Wednesday out of fear it might pass. "Boehner argued that it would be politically dangerous to essentially turn over the floor to Kucinich," the Capitol newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday.

Kucinich responded with a letter yesterday arguing that his bill is the real way to defend the War Powers Act and Congress' war-making authority.

This may not actually affect the war much. That Washington Post story also says Obama shows no intention of changing his approach with Congress on Libya. But Kucinich at least helped Congress stiffen its spine and assert itself about presidents making war. He made himself a force in the Libya debate -- or rather, he forced Congress to even have a debate about the war.

Update, 2:05 p.m.: Kucinich's bill was voted down, 265-148. Boehner's bill passed, 268-145. Interestingly, more Republicans than Democrats supported Kucinich's bill. 3:05 p.m.: Here's the Post story on the two votes.