Newspaper Endorsements: Washington Post

The Washington Post has endorsed Barack Obama for president:

So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s campaign: promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring.

By contrast, the president understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them in a balanced way. In a second term, working with an opposition that we hope would be chastened by the failure of its scorched-earth campaign against him, he is far more likely than his opponent to succeed. That makes Mr. Obama by far the superior choice.

The Post occupies an interesting position in American journalism. On the one hand it is the reliable weathervane for The Common Wisdom in Washington, DC. As such it is a national newspaper. On the other hand it’s the major local newspaper for Washington, DC and adjoining areas. I’m not sure which voice is speaking in this editorial. The president’s accomplishments probably look a lot more impressive from DC which did not ever experience the recession than they do in Chicago whose economy is, at best, in the doldrums, possibly even declining.

I suspect that the editors of the Post believe that Obama will win. That’s probably the view from Washington.

8 comments… add one

  • I love how the Post talks about Obama understanding the urgency of getting the budget under control.

    HELLO! Obama doesn’t even care that there hasn’t been a budget for years, and he mostly seems annoyed that he hasn’t been allowed to spend more. Romney might not be any good on that front (I’ve argued the point myself) but arguing that Obama is serious on this issue just makes the Post’s editorial staff look like the biggest group of fucking morons in the history of big groups of fucking morons. I mean they sound like they’re twice as stupid as Joe Biden – I would expect only an army of Joe Bidens could be this collectively stupid. The only way the Post’s editorial makes sense is if they’re convinced Obama plans on taking the country over the fiscal cliff on purpose.

  • Yes, there were aspects of the Post’s editorial that I found free flights of fancy. The part that struck me was the suggestion, echoing the president, that the Republicans, chastened, will be more accommodating after the president is re-elected.

    They will have just won their own elections. Why should they be chastened?

  • They will have just won their own elections. Why should they be chastened?

    Equally important, the President is likely to double down on his own stances and even more importantly his style of managing and negotiating. If the President is so clueless as to think he can intimidate Boehner because the President has a completely inaccurate view of who Boehner IS, then I can’t see that changing with a re-election affirmation.

  • This seems a good a place for this as any:

    Steve Verdon, I need you to talk me down off the ledge. The last couple of months have been so awful that I’m wavering and considering voting for Romney. I need you to talk me out of it! It’s nothing positive Romney’s done, it’s all the negatives around Obama, and Obama and his supporters insistence on convincing me that anyone would be better than four more for Barry.

  • TastyBits

    @Icepick

    I will be voting for ex-President Obama. What the Republicans were doing, the Democrats are doing many times more. President Romney should be able to dial it back. House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority (Majority) Leader McConnell will work to cut or eliminate the Democrat’s programs, but they will keep or increase the Republican’s programs.

    If Romney is a great executive, he should be able to control these two and their minions, but if they run roughshod over him, he is just another worthless CEO figurehead. In this case, 2014 will be a bloodbath for the Republicans.

    His third debate performance gives me a little hope. The Republican partisans wanted him to go after President Obama over Libya. Instead, he acted as a leader should – big picture, vision, consensus, etc.. He is not running to be the Prosecutor-in-Chief. A leader appoints someone to carry out this duty. The partisans still do not get it.

    I suspect that a lot of people will not be able to vote for President Obama, but they do not realize it yet.

  • I will be voting for ex-President Obama.

    I see what you did there.

    Were you in the “vote for no one” camp?

  • TastyBits

    @Icepick

    I have been in the “vote for no one” camp for a long time. The last Presidential election that interested me was 1980, and I did not think President Reagan would be much better. Hopefully, I will be surprised by a President Romney.

    Nixon is the only President that gets me riled up. He is a scumbag, and I would dig up his bones and grind them into dust. If I were in charge, his body would have been quartered and sent to the four corners of the country. I would have placed his head on a pike at the entrance to the city.

  • Good Lord, TB. That’s pretty rough. Ever watch “Braveheart”?

    Mel Gibson might be a jackass, but he is a good actor.

Leave a Comment