Up and Coming Weekly is a weekly publication in Fayetteville, NC and Fort Bragg, NC area offering local news, views, arts, entertainment and community event and business information.
Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/95528
What if Romney Had Won? by D.G. MARTIN Why did Romney win? Well, of course, he didn't. But it was close. And if he had won, how would the ex- perts be explaining it? Maybe like this: • First Debate. Romney's surprising and convincing win over a lack- luster Obama turned the campaign around. It destroyed the old maxim that "debates don't change election results." It may not have been a knockout blow, but like Muhammad Ali's win over Sonny Liston in 1964, it gave the Romney aura of a fighting "champ." • The "Etch A Sketch" maneuver. Romney executed a transforma- tion from a hardline conservative primary contestant to a moderate general-election candidate that old-line Republican voters could sup- port. And he did it deftly, at the last minute, before Democrats could do anything other than complain, and after Republican conservatives had committed to him. not know what a hard knock was until the first debate. • Dealing with House Republicans. By persuading people that he could bring the House and Senate together for some kind of practical response to the deficit emergency, Romney took votes from people who otherwise would have preferred Obama, but thought congressional Republicans would never deal with him. • Winning a large majority of the biggest voting bloc. Although most of the talk dur- ing the campaign was about Obama's overwhelming support from African-American and Latino voters, Romney built on his solid support from the largest, by far, voting bloc — whites. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long run. But today's majority‚ whites — can still deliver an election to a candidate who gains their favor. • Money. The barrage of television ads purchased by Republican independent po- litical committees moved enough last-minute deciders in the swing states to make the difference in close races. • Primary seasoning. Common wisdom says that this year's Republican primary de- bates and opposition messaging damaged Romney for the fall campaign. On the other hand, he was stronger and better prepared for a hard campaign than Obama, who did It's a Food Fight Mitt Romney preferring simply to declare that his record of economic success was better than Obama's. This widespread, but unproven, conclusion that Romney was better than Obama on the economy garnered votes from people who disagreed with him about women's reproductive issues, healthcare reform, foreign policy, and other important issues. • Romney's fortress in the South and West. Although conventional wis- dom emphasized Obama's safe states, Romney had locks on a large bloc of southern and western states, in which he did not need to spend a single minute or a single dime to win. That freed him to challenge in some of Obama's safe states as well as to devote more resources in the crucial swing states where he won the election. • Gaining grudging respect. Although Romney never overcame the lik- ability barrier, voters came to admire his public-service record, strong family loyalty and the ethical personal life he lived in conformity with the tenets of his Mormon faith. The seal of approval from Billy Graham gave any remain- ing skeptics license to vote for Romney. • Economy. Romney wisely never outlined a plan for dealing with the economy, • Voter intimidation. The dark side of Romney's victory came from successful efforts to discourage likely Obama supporters from voting. Shortened early voting periods, real and rumored new voter ID requirements, inadequate election resources in minority precincts: all made just enough difference in close states to give Romney the edge. • Benghazi. Although not the October Surprise that Romney tried to make it, the Benghazi tragedy and its aftermath created doubts about Obama's anti-terrorist cre- dentials, competence, and credibility. • One regret. About the surprising loss to Obama in North Carolina, the Romney campaign explained, "The resources we moved from there to other swing states were key to our overall victory. We make no apology for that decision." D.G. MARTIN Columnist. COM- MENTS? Editor@upandcomin- gweekly.com. From the Editors of Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: What are the new nutrition standards for school lunches that have some students boycotting their cafeterias and discarding the food? — Melissa Makowsky, Trenton, NJ Indeed, some 31 million American kids participating in the federally supported National School Lunch Program have been getting more whole grains, beans, fruits and vegetables in their diets — whether they like it or not. The change is due to new school meal standards unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) last January, per the order of 2010's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The new standards are based on the Institute of Medicine's science-based recommendations, and are the first upgrade to nutritional standards for school meals since 1995 when low- and no-fat foods were all the rage. servings of fruits and vegetables while reducing the sodium, saturated fats and trans fats in school kids' diets. Whole-grain foods, beans and dark green and orange vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, carrots and sweet potatoes have replaced things like pizza and French fries as staple items in schools that follow the program. Of course, not everybody likes the changes. Lunch strikes, Facebook protest pages, Twitter campaigns, YouTube parody videos and other means have been utilized coast- to-coast to voice opposition to the healthier meals. Some affected cafeterias blame the new smaller portions and healthier fare for causing as much as a 70 percent drop-off in school lunch program participation since the new standards took effect. Psychologists understand that kids may not come The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) believes the new standards represent an important milestone in efforts to improve the dietary habits and health of increasingly obese American kids. "Schools' misguided reliance on processed foods for speedy, low-labor cost production, industry's $1.6 billion in child-targeted advertising and a lack of faith in our children's dietary curiosity [have] created a generation of 'picky eaters' with dull palates," reports the group. "With nearly 17 percent of America's children now clinically obese and a staggering 32 percent overweight, the time is long past to address the unhealthy food environments our children live in." The new standards limit calories per meal to 850 for high school meals, 700 for middle school and 650 for elementary and more than double the mandated minimum WWW.UPANDCOMINGWEEKLY.COM around to new foods right away but will eventually eat them — so the federal government and most participating schools are sticking to their guns. And the USDA says that if a school "encounters significant hardships employing the new calorie requirements, we stand ready to work with them quickly and effectively to remedy the situation with additional flexibilities." New school meal standards hope to sway American children away from unhealthy foods, which have led to 32 percent being overweight and 17 percent obese. The benefits of the new standards far outweigh the costs. "School meals can help children develop healthy eating habits — or they can prime them for a life of poor health and unnecessary suffering," says EWG. across the country remains to be seen, but regardless millions of American kids will likely now get their healthiest meals of the day on a tray in their school cafeterias. CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org; National School Lunch Program, www.fns.usda.gov/ cnd/lunch/; Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, www.fns.usda.gov. EWG lauds the new standards for significantly expanding access to and appreciation of nourishing food. Whether they can help shift eating norms NOV. 28 - DEC. 4, 2012 UCW 17