Skip to comments.We recommend Mitt Romney for president (Dallas Morning News)
Posted on 10/01/2012 7:04:24 AM PDT by CedarDave
Candidate Obama, an orator of great skill and cadence, might have overcome everything and put the U.S. on a brighter path. President Obama, unfortunately, fell short of the challenge. The wars have largely faded from headlines, but the economic struggles remain, along with an attendant worry about future federal spending, deficits and debt.
Obamas Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nations problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.
We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights.
For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.
We see evidence of Obamas shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for the mess he left behind.
Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
This is a positive.
They endorsed McLame in 2008 for president, but did endorse Romney during the 2008 primaries. My response that I was surprised in post #4 comes from years of their usual left-leaning ways. No real surprise that they tilt left, but I’m a bit taken aback that they would come out for Romney this time. But that’s just me.
Dallas, while moving left thanks to the influx of northern transplants and “guest workers” from south of the border, is still a business oriented right of center city (for now) thanks to the ‘burbs and pockets of old money within the city limits. Maybe the paper understands that a bit with their endorsement.
At this point it's either the tree or the cliff. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and woke up too late.
Keep posting that. It's the most compact, concise evaluation of this election that I've seen.
On the latter, perhaps we should consider this in a different manner. Try thinking of defeating Obama and as many 'Rats as possible as a desirable outcome in and of itself. I understand that many would rather have avoided the collateral effect of getting a Mitt Romney for President, but that is another battle for another time. We have to repair the breach in the wall before we can consider regrouping and going out in pursuit of the enemy. Throwing out the barbarians who have already breached the gates is the first priority.
do any of these woe is me voters every post on the DUmmy sites? is it just woe is me on FR?
Just speaking for myself, although I would have preferred another of our candidates as nominee, I will have no problem going to the polls to vote against Obama and for the candidate with the best chance to beat him. I will be very happy to not see him ugly mug constantly on TV or listen to his hectoring, smarmy voice. That and not actively bankrupting the country.
No way on Earth is it a choice between two equally undesirable outcomes. If you think Romney is anywhere near as bad as Obama, you really have a lot to learn about Obama, his handlers, mentors, associates, friends.
I don't need to learn any more about Obama. I have been watching and listening to him for years. I was one of the first on FR to point out how dangerous he was, back in the day when Obama was kind of a joke on FR, and the consensus was that "people would never vote for him" for President. I'll admit I was more sure that Hillary was going to be the 'Rat nominee, but when Obama steamrollered her it simply vindicated my belief of how dangerous a shyster Obama really is.