Another major newspaper in another swing state has decided that four years have been enough to adjudge Obama worthy of firing. The Telegraph endorsed Obama four years ago.
As we noted when we endorsed Romney for the GOP nomination prior to the New Hampshire primary in January, Washington is broken. In order to fix it, it will take a strong leader willing to roll up his sleeves and work directly with the heads of both parties to carve out the best possible solutions.
We believe Romney has demonstrated that he can do that; the president has had four years to demonstrate that he can’t.
To be clear, we didn’t make the decision not to endorse Obama for a second term lightly. Nor do we believe, like many of his critics, that he is without achievement during his time in office.
At the very least, walking into the second-worst economic crisis in the nation’s history, the president and his administration deserve credit for steadying the ship of state through a combination of middle-class tax cuts, a stimulus program and a rescue of the auto industry.
And there can be no denying that House and Senate Republicans did everything in their power to stymie the president’s agenda, even putting the nation at risk of default during the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011.
But true leaders find ways to work around such obstacles, much like Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did during their terms in office.
True leaders also don’t wait until two weeks before Election Day – in the form of a 20-page booklet, no less – to lay out a specific agenda for the next four years. Coupled with the negative tenor of the campaign, that merely confirms the president and his strategists felt that attacking Romney’s agenda was more politically expedient than releasing one of their own.
The paper’s endorsement hits the print edition tomorrow.
When did the racists take over the newpaper business?
and btw, what the Fraud walked into wasn’t anywhere close to the second worst economic crisis in our history. If he had done nothing whatsoever, the economy would be much much better than it is today.
He did 3 things: 1) the Stickittous – a cynical trillion dollar payoff to his supporters that didn’t help the economy in the slightest and ran the national debt through the roof. Think about it as a big fat log in a game of pick up stick. 2) obamacare – the marxist wet dream that has yet to kick in with its full fury but which has already crippled employment and ruined thousands of small businessmen. 3) Dodd Franks – a deck shuffling financial bill that has done nothing but increase regulation and hence costs. Not a single underlying problem was even addressed, no matter solved.
“He did” is used advisedly, since all the Fraud did was sign bills that the shockingly corrupt Democrat Congress jammed down the country’s throat.
Oh yes, I forgot the “auto bailout” which saved an industry – the UAW free health care industry. The auto industry? gathering steam for its next bankruptcy.
The only thing that helped, maybe, was the bank bailout. At least, it doesn’t seem to have hurt anything other than the principles of free enterprise.
Preference cascade gaining Mittmentum.
Well said. Preference cascade, indeed.
Obie, when you’ve lost Nashua…and they called Clinton a leader, that’s gotta sting. (he was an effective economic steward)
Mourning in America just might become morning in America. Mittmentum, hope and real change.
Apparently asking the President to propose a serious budget that might at least get ONE Democratic Congressman’s support is “putting the nation at risk of default during the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011″. The spending spree that Obama, Reid and Pelosi went on for the first two years of the Obama administration, when Republicans could stop none of it, didn’t have anything to do with the nation being at risk of default. No, it’s the Republicans.
Too bad all the Massholes moved up to southern NH and pushed what was a great state so far Left that even when endorsing a Republican, the editors of the Telegraph have to make sure that people see them holding their nose.
I have to disagree with one point in the editorial…
Washington doesn’t need to be “fixed”. It needs to be “downsized”. It needs to be reduced in power and scope.
Understand this: bureaucrats don’t go to Washington to divest power back to the people. Just the opposite. They go there to aggregate more power IN Washington. This mission is embedded in Washington culture, and it cannot be changed.
So, rather than “fix” Washington, make it 25% smaller, and require that it spend 25% less in real dollars, rather than fake dollars. If that’s done, then it won’t matter whether the culture changes or not. Power will return to individuals, entrepreneurs, wealth-creators.
Clearly, the editorial board of the Telegraph are STILL delusional. Though they endorse Romney today, they will most certainly fall for the “next” Obama, the next utopian snake oil salesman who comes along. I guarantee it.
The only “obstacles” Bill Clinton had to “work around” were the ones he put in his own path. The recession was over and recovery well under way by the time he took office. Like Obama, he started with a Democratic majority congress. And, like Obama, he overreached on health care reform. Not only did HillaryCare prove to be unpalatable to members of his own party, it was the impetus for the Republican takeover of the House. But Bill, unlike Obama, worked with the Republicans and, following their lead, enjoyed some solid successes and an economy on the boom and cruised to re-election. Maybe if, after the ’10 election, Obama had done a little of the same, he’d be cruising to re-election as well.