Skip to comments.Endorsement: Mitt Romney for president - LA Newspaper Group (LA Daily News, Press-Telegram, etc.)
Posted on 10/26/2012 9:11:44 AM PDT by Smogger
Four years ago, as America faced serious trouble at home and abroad, this news organization embraced the need for bold change to a different brand of leadership and endorsed Barack Obama for president. That assessment of the depth of the nation's problems and the most promising solution was correct in 2008. Regrettably, it applies no less in 2012, after nearly a full term of Obama's administration. This is why the editorial board urges voters to choose Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election. He is the leader this country needs for the future.
The election is likely to be very close, the Electoral College tally to be tipped one way or another by the results in just a few states. Alas, California again will not be among the difference-makers.
The mere fact that Obama finds himself in a neck-and- neck race speaks to the disappointment he has inspired in many one-time believers. Even if he ekes out a victory, the public-opinion polls suggest he will be the first president in 180 years to be elected to a second term with a lower percentage of the popular vote than he received the first time around.
That Democrats and Republicans are so evenly and stubbornly split also speaks to the political state of a nation beset by corrosive partisanship. An unhealthy number of supporters of the Democratic ticket, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and the Republican standard bearers, Romney and running mate Paul Ryan, cannot imagine what
the other side is thinking. It is precisely this kind of partisan divide that Obama promised to end. He was going to make history not only as the United States' first black president but as its healer, vowing to lead the nation into a new era of cooperation. But that promise to blend blue America and red America into purple America is an example of Obama's failure of leadership.
Sad to say, the reservations our editorial board expressed about Obama in 2008 have been borne out. His inexperience in an executive position has been exposed. His naivete about his chances of getting much of his program through a deeply partisan Congress has been cured the hard way.
Instead of taking charge in Washington, Obama has shown unwillingness to take even the most basic step in presidential leadership: picking up the Oval Office phone to bring his influence to bear on reluctant representatives and senators.
Obama's signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is symbolic of his term for another reason: It passed entirely because of Democratic support.
The economy is making an all-too-slow recovery. The nation's budget problems remain unsolved, portending a new financial crisis ahead. In the ending of the Iraq War and the killing of Osama bin Laden, there is a sense that we've already seen the high points of an Obama administration.
And Americans hoping for better from a prospective second term are frustrated by Obama's failure to explain how four more years would be different.
Meanwhile, Romney is not merely an acceptable alternative to Obama.
He is an honorable, trustworthy and steady leader who, had he been the Republican Party's nominee four years ago, would have given Obama a tougher challenge than the reckless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Romney has proven his leadership qualities as a business success, as the trouble-shooting head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as the governor of Democratic Party-dominated Massachusetts.
And, at a time when leading Republicans and Democrats fly the flag of inflexibility, the worst thing that many critics say about Romney is that he is too flexible, that he bends his policies to the situations in front of him.
As president, Romney would not be restrained by foolish consistency. He would be expected to do the right thing no matter where the solutions originate. This is the most precious trait an officeholder can have in this era of corrosive hyperpartisanship.
The best first move a President Romney could make would be to claim ownership of the nation's problems from the minute he is sworn in. Little has shaken Americans' faith in Obama as his -- and his most ardent supporters' -- habit of reminding us of the problems he inherited from President George W. Bush.
Instead of following through on his hope-and-change message, Obama keeps telling us the limits of hope and change.
We are all for hope and we champion change. Many of this organization's editorial positions are guided by the belief that change in government is to be sought, not feared. We embrace new leaders, independent thinking, and shaking up the status quo; this philosophy is evident in several other endorsements this fall.
Four years ago, the editorial board's willingness to change horses in the middle of a churning river led us to call for voters to break the Republican hold on the White House and try a Democrat with a fresh spark.
Today, it leads the editorial board to urge voters to say "enough" to a Democratic administration whose sincere best has turned out disappointing, and install a seasoned leader with a record of fixing problems.
Mitt Romney is that seasoned leader.
Now if the LAT would just come around.
But they wont. The LAT thinks it is the NYT of the left coast.
I’m looking for an avalanche this weekend.
It’s put up or shut up time.
They are starting to abandon ship! It is only a matter of time. Great news for America and freedom.
By the way, Sarah Palin was the only one warning us during the GOP campaign of 2008. She was not reckless. No one wanted to listen. America suffered. What a shame that this narrative still lives on.
Sarah is a true American patriot.
Actually the LATimes may think of itself that way, but unlike the NYTimes, they actually seem to have some of the last remaining objective journalists on staff — I’ve had a slight fondness for the LATimes since they and AFP were the only Western media outlets to debunk NATO’s breathless claims of “genocide” in Kosovo in real time. They’re also the MSM outlet that seems to get the incredulous “they’re reporting real news!” reaction from FReepers most often.
That said, their editorial page is reliably leftist, so I fully expect they’ll endorse Obama (or at a best offer no endorsement).
Obama is looking smaller and smaller and smaller....
This has got to be giving Obama flu like symptoms.
Barack, I know you’re not so good with technical stuff, so I’ll help you out. One end of the hose goes in the exhaust pipe and the other goes in the window. Any questions? LOL.
By the way, you are full of BS.
Not an insignificant endorsement.
Same owner as:
The group is owned by William Dean Singleton, who also owns the Denver Post, the Alameda Newspaper Group, which includes the Oakland Tribune, as well as the Mercury News of San Jose and numerous other papers.
Sorry you feel that way.
Please tell me, whom within the McCain campaign pushed the narrative that Obama was not the man he was portraying himself to be. 54% percent of us chose wrongly, because they refused to listen to those 46% who new the truth. America suffered. No one listened to the warnings in Europe in the 1920’s.
Thankfully, it looks as though America is taken its blinders off just in time.
Would we be in this mess if McCain and Palin had won?
I seriously doubt it!
And, I really don’t think she would EVER (out loud) speculate on the size of a former Seal’s balls!
Probably not as deep, but still covered in doo-doo.
Not a chance!
This endorsement includes our local paper: The Daily Breeze. Yay!
1916, Woodrow Wilson won reelection by a much smaller margin in the popular and electoral vote but since their were not 3 major candidates like 1912 he got a higher overall % of the popular vote.
Wilson really should have lost and I believe he did in fact not actually win California and thus the election.
Wilson shouldn’t have run in the first place. If TR hadn’t been such a megalomaniac, he’d have sat down and shut up and allowed Taft to serve out two terms.
Wilson shouldn’t have won in the first place. If TR hadn’t been such a megalomaniac, he’d have sat down and shut up and allowed Taft to serve out two terms.
You mean they’re not down with taxing the $hit out of anything that moves and spending everything on govt?
What’s gotten into them?
Agreed. His bust being on Mt Rushmore is a disgrace.
McLame supported stimulus, bailouts, etc. Oh yeah, he would have been a real fiscal hawk, right?? And the housing thing that started it all was a done deal.
So yeah, we WOULD still be in deep doo-doo. And the doo-doo pit is inescapable, no matter WHO is in charge. Just a matter of what flag is fluttering when the stern goes under.
Had McCain/Palin been elected we would not have:
2. $16 Trillion debt.
3. Muslim Brotherhood running the Middle East.
4. 14% ++ unemployment.
5. 23,000,00 Americans out of work.
6. Diminished reputation around the world.
7. 47,000,000 Americans on food stamps.
8. Almost 9,000,000 Americans on SS Disability.
9. A failed energy policy.
10. Two more LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist racist women Supreme Court Judges.
11. 47 Czars.
12. A thoroughly politicized anti-American federal government.
13. Four dead Americans in Libya.
And those are just for starters off the top of my head.
No question that we would be better off, individually and collectively.
Obongo Bozo and the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist regime he presides over is an EPIC FAILURE!
How anyone can maintain that we would not have been better off with McCain/Palin defies all logic, common sense, and just plain makes no sense, given the disastrous four years we have gone through.
I did NOT say we would be better off with Obozo, quite the opposite.
I did say, however, we would still be in deep doo-doo.....and we would have been.
Lay the blame where you will, but the facts are the facts....this country cannot get out of debt without massive civil unrest. To think otherwise is whistling past the graveyard.
R or D, the choice only determines the timeframe, not the outcome.
I am trying to sell you on the notion that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution, at least insofar as this discussion shows.
I am, and I hope the vast majority of my fellow Americans are, working to vanquish Obongo Bozo and his LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist thug regime FRom Washington, DC.
That is the first order of business.
The second order of business is to prevent the “massive civil unrest” you are forecasting by reversing the slide to socialism we have been engaged in since WW II.
It is a massive undertaking, and we all need to be pulling the wagon, not standing on the sidelines, casting aspersions on our motives and throwing stones.
We need all the help we can get.
LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!