From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:
Another Left Leaning Newspaper Endorses Mitt Romney
October 18, 2012
What’s that old saying? Oh yeah, “It’s the economy, stupid.” I guess that’s what the editors of the left leaning Orlando Sentinel were thinking when they endorsed Mitt Romney. It’s another case of “We don’t like this guy all that much, but Obama has been so awful he’s the best choice.”
Romney is not our ideal candidate for president. We’ve been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.
I have no idea why that wouldn’t be a positive for Mr Romney; Barack Obama has been President for 3½ years, and he still hasn’t climbed the learning curve on foreign policy.
But the core of Romney’s campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government’s balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3 billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.
This is Romney’s time to lead, again. If he doesn’t produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we’ll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
Read the whole thing, as it also details how President Obama failed to work with Congress and to embrace the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations. He appointed the panel, then dissed it.
This isn’t the first left-leaning paper to endorse Romney, as noted at Big Journalism.
On the heels of Wednesday’s endorsement of Mitt Romney by the traditionally liberal Nashville Tennessean, another longtime left-leaning newspaper– the Orlando Sentinel – has also endorsed President Barack Obama’s Republican challenger. The Sentinel’s endorsement will have a greater impact, since it comes from one of the largest newspapers in the key swing state of Florida.
As I noted at Sulia, the next two and a half weeks are going to be really interesting.
The Sentinal’s logic was pretty simple:
We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.
It’s easy enough to see: the editors of the Sentinel would have liked to be able to endorse President Obama; the President is more naturally attuned to their way of thinking. This was, if anything, a hold-their-collective-noses endorsement, but they made it for one simple reason: after 3½ years in office, President Obama’s record is one of failure, not success.
If you read the entire editorial, you will see that the editors are giving their readers the same evidence as THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL has presented: by the numbers, by the objective measures, the Obama Administration has simply not measured up.
It isn’t much of a surprise that this site does not have a positive impression of the President; all of the writers here voted against Senator Obama in 2008. But the editors of the Sentinel supported his campaign in 2008; their Hopes have been dashed, and they have now Changed their minds. The editors might have a more liberal mindset, but without economic success, without the growth we need to see to prosper, nothing else matters.
Lee Iacocca, a lifelong Democrat who has been a war horse for numerous Democratic candidates in the past and who once turned down an appointment to the US. Senate, has endorsed Mitt Romney:
A little more at the link.
If there’s anyone who knows the automobile industry, it’s Mr Iacocca, but it seems that Mr Iacocca wasn’t impressed enough by President Obama’s bailout of General Motors and Chrysler to have that lifelong Democrat support President Obama.
This is a time for reality, and reality is that we have a choice between Mitt Romney, who might or might not make a good President, and Barack Obama, who has already proved that he is a bad President. I suppose that President Obama’s supporters Hope that his performance Changes for the better, but it won’t, because he simply isn’t up to the job.
And we’re going to see more of this. There are plenty of very practical Democrats out there who really wanted, and hoped, that President Obama could do the job, successful, hard-working men and women who really don’t think much of the social conservatives, who aren’t hard-liners on immigration or same-sex “marriage” or abortion, but who are concerned with the economy and productivity and expansion and business and success and deficit spending and the national debt, who realize that the Obama Administration’s policies have simply not been helpful to our economy.
The problem is that Romney has not told us how he will turn the economy around, unless some might think, wrongly, that going back to the trickle-down, regulation-less policies of Bush-43 will do it. And then we will still have to deal with the oligarchical extremism of the Republican party we have today.
The reality that you refuse to accept, Mr Editor, is that the policies of your party produced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, after which your party (re Senator McConnell) refused to work with President Obama to help in the recovery. Yet we have made remarkable progress anyway, though not nearly enough.
And worse, now we have the Citizens United outcome to deal with, a concerted voter suppression effort going on in many red states, and a Republican presidential candidate who does not know how to tell the truth, thus showing his paucity of core principles.
So the question remains whether the 98% can see through this fog and make the right decision. Fortunately, President Obama is showing some strength in enough battleground states to capture the election. We shall soon see the result.
What was it that Perry was once referred to — the Energizer Bunny? He just keeps posting the same alternate reality-based nonsense.
WW wrote:
I’m an evil reich-wing blogger, so perhaps you can dismiss my opinions that way, but when you start to see liberal newspapers like the Orlando Sentinel, which endorsed Mr Obama last time around, or loyal Democrats like Lee Iacocca, telling you that President Obama simply hasn’t been up to the job, such dismissals don’t work.
Mr Iacocca knows success when he sees it . . . and he knows failure as well, having rescued Chrysler before. He is a man interested in, and expecting of, results, and one who seems rather intolerant of excuses. Blaming the recession on George Bush, and the failure of President Obama’s policies on Senator McConnell — who will still lead, at the very least, a Senate with enough Republicans to easily sustain a filibuster in the next Congress — might make you feel better, but it doesn’t produce any actual results, does it? It might be enough for you to persuade enough other people to get President Obama re-elected, but it doesn’t actually fix anything, does it?
From The Hill, with a hat tip to Karen:
It seems that either we must assume that President Obama’s second-term policies would simply be continuations of those from his first, which have not worked, which have not produced acceptable results, or, if his plans are different, that he has provided no more detail than you complain Mr Romney has. At least Mr Romney’s plans have not yet failed!
Yes, your Editor opposes President Obama on ideological grounds, but on practical grounds as well: he just can’t do the job. I have previously criticized Mr Romney’s statements that he would reduce unemployment to 6% and create 12 million new jobs, because those are promises which might get kept for him, but which he cannot keep himself. But President Obama has already broken promises to halve the deficit, to hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8%, and a projected less than 6% now, and yet he is now making more promises that he can’t keep: halving our oil imports and hiring 100,000 new teachers (aren’t those local employees?). About all we know is that he plans to keep doing what he has been doing in funding so-called “green” energy companies, something which has already resulted in some rather spectacular bankruptcies.
What he has done so far has failed, and all that we can assume is that he wants to continue with the same failed policies. It doesn’t matter how nice a guy you think he is, how well-meaning you believe him to be, or how much you think that it’s all George Bush’s fault, President Obama is just not up to the job. That’s why you are seeing real, practical Democrats abandoning him.
It really is amazing isn’t it koolo? It’s like he just copies and pastes. I mean a life long Democrat like Iacocca can see the light but Wagonwheel? No way.
And he repeats stuff like: “The problem is that Romney has not told us how he will turn the economy around” when he’s been told Go To Romney’s Web Site, read and learn. But no, it’s easier to just keep chanting “there is no plan, there is no plan”.
Then he starts with his “unless some might think, wrongly, that going back to the trickle-down, regulation-less policies of Bush-43 will do it.” Again wagonwheel, there is no trickle-down. That’s a a BS tern used to denegrate your opposition. And there were thousands of regulations during Bush or do you believe Soetoro invented regulations ( I think he just made them an art form )? BTW Wagonwheel, the Congress makes the regulations, the president makes policy. Wagonwheel’s still campaigning againt Bush! Has he been willfully blind the last four years?
But of course no Wagonwheel post would be complete without the obligatory slander of the opposition like ” And then we will still have to deal with the oligarchical extremism of the Republican party we have today.” You see, following a guy with a FAILED economic policy, a FAILED energy policy, a FAILED foreign policy is NOT extreme! Following a guy who presided over lower credit ratings, 48 million on food stamps, 23 million unemployed, 6 million just quit even looking for work, almost zero business growth, dozens of FAILED “green” companies, burning embassies, murdered ambassadors and their staff, the price of gas DOUBLING, the price of ALL consumer goods soaring because of the price of energy, a society completly devided by race/gender/class, these are all signs that we are “making remarkable progress anyway”.
I still find it amazing that after FOUR YEARS OF SOETORO everything to these clowns is still Bush’s fault. I guess koolo, there still are even in this age of information , fools who follow anything.
One more thing you need to learn Wagonwheel: If you’re looking for a president to “turn the economy around” you’re looking toward the wrong person. Presidents don’t turn the economy around, WE DO! We, the entrepreneurs, the businessmen, the labor force, all those employees, all the dreamers, inventors and creators of commerce. NOT THE DAMN PRESIDENT! And if we put an actual grown up, experienced, successful businessman at the helm the turn around will be dramatic. Why? Because all those people, US, that I mentioned above will realize THEY ARE NO LONGER THE ENEMY, but rather the ENGINE which will propell us to success. Soetoro could NEVER deliver that! That’s called confidence, what Soetoro delivers is uncertainty.
I think Mr. Editor, the most telling line of the article from The Hill was the last: “But both men’s pledges tend to be high on aspiration and low on detail. On the stump, they spend more time portraying desirable destinations rather than outlining their maps for how to get there.”
I love “outlining their maps to get there”. I love that because there is no “map”. All any president can do is establish a policy which promotes growth, we do the rest. In business one plans his work and works his plan. We set goals and measure our success by achieving them. And in business we realize every time we set a goal there will appear “obstructions”. It is our job to recognize those obstructions to our goal, assess them and then overcome them. There is no room for emotion in economics, business or war. Someting comes up like Wagonwheel’s proverbial “bump in the road” or “headwinds” we find a way to adapt, overcome and defeat it. Failure is unacceptable.
Unleash the businessmen, the dreamers, the inventors and all those crazy little nerds who come up with dopey things like Facebook. Release the labor force from the bondage of taxes, regulations and uncertainty and we will grow our asses off. Stop threatening the wealth creators and telling people they are the Bad Guys.
There used to be a time in America when one saw a rich guy one would think “Someday I wanna be like him”. Now, thanks to the class war of the leftists when one sees a rich guy he thinks “I wanna kill that 1% thief”. That’s just wrong man. When did being successful become unAmerican?
Actually, Hoagie, I would not be surprised if I found myself opposed to some of Mr Romney’s proposals once he becomes President, if we are fortunate enough to see that happen. I am hoping that he doesn’t present his own “stimulus plan,” though that’s something politicians like to do. I might favor one which returned cash directly to the taxpayers, the way President Bush’s stimulus plan did, if it is accompanied by spending cuts to keep such a plan from increasing the deficit. But if he comes up with some sort of targeted plan, involving government spending in some areas, then no, I’m sure I would oppose such.
What the government needs to do is reduce spending, reduce burdensome regulations, increase confidence that the rules won’t be changed a few months down the road, and then get out of the way. My guess is that the recovery would still be slow, albeit probably somewhat faster, as people had more disposable income, but our economic problems are due to the lack of demand; we’ll have to see increased demand before businessmen can reasonably create jobs.
I agree with most of what you say Mr. Editor and I really agree with the fact that I will not endorse everything Romney would do. I’m not a robot.
BUT, I do not agree that our economic problems are due to lack of demand. I think lack of demand is a symptom of the real problem: Lack of certainty which creates it’s sister, no confidence. If the businessman, from the corner store to the multinational corporation, cannot be certain of the future to such a degree he (it) is comfotable projecting growth, then growth will not occur. The proof is that there is no “lack of demand” for iPhone 5′s, iPads, entertainment, sports and many other items and services. They create their own demand! There is a lack of hiring and production in industrial areas where huge capital investments are required and where interaction with and compliance to government mandates are heavy. Where the ability to project a certain growth in profit without government over-regulation and mandate exists as per the above, growth exists as does demand. But in businesses where they are dependant a great deal on a firm energy policy NOT driven by global warming alarmists and must spend millions in compliance costs growth will stagnate. BTW, it only stagnates so long, then it moves to friendlier shores.
Many, many companies have been started and expanded by creating their own demand. Demand starts somewhere, usually with a product or service which cuts itself out of the heard and offers something of such an intrinsic value eveybody wants one. A simple example is that nobody wanted a Big Mac…until McDonald’s built and marketed one. Then, voila! everyone wanted a Big Mac. Mission accomplished…demand created.
The headline here reads: The Orlando Sentinel endorses Mitt Romney
Well that is certainly true, but it is anecdotal, but our Editor wishes to make a big deal with it anyway, indicating just how desperate to win he really is. Well, I’m desperate to, so here are a few more anecdotes:
The Tampa Bay Times has endorsed President Obama;
The Denver Post has endorsed President Obama;
The Salt Lake City Tribune has endorsed President Obama!
So there!!!
On the latter endorsement, from Mormon country:
I believe we see that the truth has been written here!
This is why I consider President Obama’s record to be remarkable:
This is part of the endorsement justification given President Obama for a second term, by the Tampa Bay Times. More here.
This is why I consider President Obama’s record to be remarkable:
This is part of the endorsement justification given President Obama for a second term, by the Tampa Bay Times. More here.
Perry, take a look at the definition of anecdote/anecdotal.
Ropelight, should you not say the same thing to our Editor re The Orlando Sentinal?
There are big anecdotes, and there are small anecdotes. This Tampa Bay Times anecdote is neither; it is a huge anecdote!
Consider this: The RNC Convention was held in Tampa. The Tampa Bay Times is the largest circulation newspaper in the State of Florida. The Tampa Bay Times endorsed President Obama!
This is indeed huge!!!
Carbon Dioxide is retained by water.
The Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water in the world, which is 75 percent covered by water.
As water heats up, it is less capable of holding Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide is a trailing indicator (by as much as 800 years!) on world temperature.
The Earth heats up, then the Carbon Dioxide shows up. (Imagine that. A planet that is 75 percent covered by a substance that releases Carbon Dioxide when it gets hotter has more Carbon Dioxide as it gets hotter.)
The Earth cools down, then the Carbon Dioxide vanishes. (Imagine that. A planet that is 75 percet covered by a substance that accumulates Carbon Dioxide as it cools has less Carbon Dioxide as it gets cooler.)
The world quit getting warmer 15 years ago.
And yet, the supposed former chemist and former chemistry teacher rejects chemistry to push his jobs-destroying, wealth-destroying, America-destroying agenda.
But that fool sees an article showing a major Leftist newspaper who supports Romney, and he counters with other Leftist newspapers who don’t. As if that actually meant anything.
When a Leftist organization supports the Leftist candidate, that means absolutely nothing. It’s expected. It’s what they do. Support their own kind.
But, when a Leftist organization rejects the Leftist candidate and supports the non-Leftist candidate, that means something. That makes waves. That makes a difference. That means the Leftist candidate is in serious, deep doo-doo.
42 percent of Americans consider themselves Conservative.
20 percent of Americans consider themselves Liberal.
Perry has always been in the Left half of the Left 20 percent. Perry has always been on the fringe. And yet, Perry wants to mock the 42 percent who, in combination with the 36 percent who consider themselves Moderate, are all far and away to the Right of loser Perry.
Well now, John has had to twist and turn heartily to try to make a positive out of these present endorsements of President Obama. To more rational folks, this is not convincing.
Note well that John says not a word about the endorsement of President Obama by The Salt Lake City Tribune or The Denver Post. Why is this? Because John knows very well that these endorsement are bad news for him, therefore it pains him to admit it, therefore he won’t admit it. In the meantime, he will continue to twist and turn.
These endorsements represent using common sense and reality checks in order to project a better future for ourselves.
” Well, I’m desperate to, so here are a few more anecdotes:
The Tampa Bay Times has endorsed President Obama;
The Denver Post has endorsed President Obama;
The Salt Lake City Tribune has endorsed President Obama!”
Okay Wagonwheel! Now:
The Communist Party USA endorsed Obama;
The Socialist Workers Party endorsed Obama;
Hugo Chavez endorsed Obama;
So there!
Yeah! This is sort of like Idiot Perry railing daily against Pres. Bush and his “trashing of the Constitution” yet he never, ever says a word about Dictator Obama following the exact same policies — and worse.
Why is this? Because Idiot Perry knows very well that these policies are bad news for him, therefore it pains him to admit it, therefore he won’t admit it. In the meantime, he will continue to twist and turn. Like the moronic hypocrite that he is and always been.
It has hardly come roaring back. The taxpayers still owe tens of billions for GM, which may be heading for bankruptcy again, and Chrysler is owned by a foreigh company. If they will lie about this, then the rest of the editorial is probably a lie, too.
No it isn’t. Everyone knows most newspapers are left wing, and will endorse left wing candidates. Therefore their bendorsements are entirely predictable, and meaningless.