Media Endorsements of Presidential Candidates

[Darkstar]

I've merged all the previous media endorsement threads into this one. This thread will remain at the top of the politics forum until the election.

I was windering how this thread exploded with posts like that...

[DeistPaladin]

ORLANDO SUN SENTINEL FLIPS, ENDORSES ROMNEY

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-mitt-rom...7975.story

Four years into Barack Obama’s presidency, economic growth is sputtering. Family incomes are down. Poverty is up. Business owners are reluctant to assume risk in the face of unending uncertainty. Many are holding on by their fingernails, desperate for signs of an economic recovery that will help them provide for themselves, their employees, their customers and their communities.

When President Obama came into office in 2009, the economy was in freefall and though untested, he inspired us with his promise of hope and change. Now, four years later, we have little reason to believe he can turn things around.

So while we endorsed Obama in 2008, we recommend voters choose

Would you trade the economy we have now for the economy we had when Obama came into office?

You see, for anyone who criticizes Obama's handling of the economy, I'd like to offer a simple formula:
an economic recovery, however sluggish > a collapsing economy

And, btw, the recovery might not be so sluggish if the Republicans didn't filibuster everything that came through the Senate and literally decide and openly declare that winning in 2012 was more important than cleaning up their mess and saving the country.

[Minimalist]

I've merged all the previous media endorsement threads into this one. This thread will remain at the top of the politics forum until the election.

Is that because it is suddenly about tits?

[Tino]

2008 Supporter Pauline McAreavy Won't Be Voting For Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/CNG...0cf1d---81

Don't piss off the old people, lawdy.

---

Would you trade the economy we have now for the economy we had when Obama came into office?

Hell yes! I would love to have a do-over of the last 4 years. We've got anemic performance at the unfathomable cost of $4,000,000,000,000. For a trillion (ten to the twelfth) dollars we could have just given 20 million people do-nothing jobs at a salary of $50,000 per year. Wouldn't we rather just have those 20 million jobs?

And, btw, the recovery might not be so sluggish if the Republicans didn't filibuster everything that came through the Senate and literally decide and openly declare that winning in 2012 was more important than cleaning up their mess and saving the country.

Conveniently forgetting that the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency for the first two years of his term. And poor Obama, not everyone wanted to do what he wanted to do. That's just an excuse. Leaders get results.

OK, play the race card now and we can wrap this up.

---

I've merged all the previous media endorsement threads into this one. This thread will remain at the top of the politics forum until the election.

I was windering how this thread exploded with posts like that...

It was an explosion of political-chat goodness!

[DeistPaladin]

Hell yes! I would love to have a do-over of the last 4 years. We've got anemic performance at the unfathomable cost of $4,000,000,000,000. For a trillion (ten to the twelfth) dollars we could have just given 20 million people do-nothing jobs at a salary of $50,000 per year. Wouldn't we rather just have those 20 million jobs?

And where did all that debt come from? Oh yes, that's right, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush's private little war of aggression in Iraq and the economy he crashed. Of course, Romney knows what to do about all that debt. Cut taxes more and raise defense spending.

Conveniently forgetting that the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency for the first two years of his term. And poor Obama, not everyone wanted to do what he wanted to do. That's just an excuse. Leaders get results.

Your point? It takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate with the Republicans abusing the filibuster the way they have been since 2006, in an effort to sabotage everything.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, said the GOP's primary goal was to make Obama a one term president. The fact that we were in an economic crisis and still at war didn't matter much to him. Their higher priority, openly stated, was taking back power at any cost.

In essence: "Fuck the country. Fuck cleaning up the mess we made. We're here to sabotage Obama so we can take back power. And if the country has to suffer for our political ambitions, well that's their fault for voting us out."

Their actions echoed these words as they filibustered everything, even bills that Republicans would later vote for.

Leadership doesn't enter into it when you're dealing with an attitude like that.

[Tino]

DesMoines Register has endorsed every Democrat since Jimmy Carter, and now endorses Romney

"American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article.../121026026

[DeistPaladin]

Tino, I keep making a point that you keep ignoring.

Conservatives are clutching their pearls over that awful debt. Set aside that the debt comes from tax cuts, the Bush bank bailouts and the unfunded wars, Romney's solution is to cut taxes and increase defense spending?

So how do you suppose this will work given the track record with how it worked for Reagan and W Bush?

Or does Romney have some secret plan to solve the problem with the debt that I haven't heard about yet?

And while I'm asking about what Romney plans, what exactly is the plan to "put Americans back to work" aside from wishing it so? Or are tax cuts going to magically take care of that problem too?

[Tino]

Tino, I keep making a point that you keep ignoring.

Conservatives are clutching their pearls over that awful debt. Set aside that the debt comes from tax cuts, the Bush bank bailouts and the unfunded wars, Romney's solution is to cut taxes and increase defense spending?

So how do you suppose this will work given the track record with how it worked for Reagan and W Bush?

Or does Romney have some secret plan to solve the problem with the debt that I haven't heard about yet?

And while I'm asking about what Romney plans, what exactly is the plan to "put Americans back to work" aside from wishing it so? Or are tax cuts going to magically take care of that problem too?

Our debt is due primarily to spending too much.

I've already answered your questions about how lowering tax rates can actually generate more tax revenues. You don't want to hear it but I've already covered it.

Romney's plan has 5 components:

1. achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020

2. open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs. In the debates Romney explained why his trade focus is on S. America.

3. provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

4. cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

5. champion small business by pursuing tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

Romney discussed his differences with Bush in one of the debates. The difference I recall is a focus on small business rather than Bush's focus on large business, Bush was also not very successful at working with Democrats; Romney wants to identify the goals and then have Congress work out how to get the cuts needed in a bi-partisan way.

[cratehorus]

Our debt is due primarily to spending too much.

yeah we spent waaay too much on tax cuts and military spending, now please explain why these "dont count" as spending programs

NOT ONE BUT 2 WARS for the first time in US history, that taxes weren't raised to pay for them, and instead what did your genius right wing saviours do? they cut taxes against the advice of every economist, go look up all those liberal economists you hate so much and see what their predictions where if bush went ahead with this crap.....and guess what it happend just like they said, and now you want us to beleive this lie again? why because FOX told you so? or because it just makes "sense"

I've already answered your questions about how lowering tax rates can actually generate more tax revenues. You don't want to hear it but I've already covered it.

you don't answer questions you pick up on dog whistles then, parrot right wing talking points

1. achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020

2. open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs. In the debates Romney explained why his trade focus is on S. America.

why would romney close his own business' in China? The S.America one is new, who does he mean? venezuela?

3. provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

romney closes public education in his "plan", and just recently repukes closed VETERAN'S training benefits for jobs. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...he-senate/

4. cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

by what??? cutting taxes and closing freeways.....yeah those pesky freeways sure are getting in the WAY of building another thousand nukes

5. champion small business by pursuing tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

bush raised taxes on small business' with the SAME lie, do you think if cross your fingers and "wish" really hard, it'll work this time?

Romney discussed his differences with Bush in one of the debates. The difference I recall is a focus on small business rather than Bush's focus on large business, Bush was also not very successful at working with Democrats; Romney wants to identify the goals and then have Congress work out how to get the cuts needed in a bi-partisan way.

The democrats didn't work with bush? WHEN???? during which part? the Iraq war? name one thing bush did not get to do because of the democrats in office. Republicans have never worked with Obama why should Democrats work with Romney, It's obviously a good strategy if it makes idiots like you beleive this shit

[Tino]

NY Post's Michael Goodwin Switches to Romney

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/why_v...IuWCfgNpnJ

"During the long slog, Romney revealed qualities that could make him a very good president. There is not a hint of scandal in his life or career, and his economic policies could spark real growth in jobs, not in food stamps.

He keenly recognizes the danger of the growing debt. With Paul Ryan, he chose a youthful, smart No. 2 who possesses deep knowledge of the budget mess and yet an optimistic view of America’s future.

On the foreign stage, Romney is a novice, but his instincts about American power are right and his remarks in the last debate about Obama’s apology tour were a defining difference. It is impossible to imagine Romney going abroad to criticize his country, or lying about the murder of an ambassador. The challenger is right when he says Obama has made the nation less safe.

Romney is no “movement conservative,” but is moderate and prudent in the everyday ways of most Americans. As he proved in Massachusetts, he can work with Democrats to get things done.

As for being a Mormon, to hold that against Romney is pure bigotry. His election would knock down one more barrier to equality of opportunity.

Finally, there is temperament. Romney’s firm, steady demeanor during Obama’s rancid attempts at character assassination demonstrates the presidential character lacking in the incumbent. That’s the change I want for my country."

---

NY Times Endorses Obama; Richmond Times-Dispatch Endorses Romney

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinio...inion&_r=0

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-o...r-2314814/