The Endorsements Are Coming In

Newspaper endorsements of the presidential candidates are appearing in substantial numbers now. By my reckoning 22 newspapers have endorsed Barack Obama’s re-election while 20 newspapers have endorsed the election of Mitt Romney. Below I have linked and excerpted only those newspapers which changed the party alignment of the candidate endorsed between now and 2008, i.e. I’ve cited those that endorsed Obama in 2008 but endorse Romney now or endorsed McCain in 2008 and endorse Obama now, or that made no endorsement in 2008.

By and large I’m pretty shocked at how vapid most of these endorsements are if not outright stupid. How can anyone who passed basic arithmetic in elementary school believe that a tax on those earning $250,000 or more, something the president has supported for some time, will balance the budget? There may be other reasons to support a tax limited to the highest income earners but balancing the budget ain’t it.

Many of the endorsements, whether for Obama or Romney, are quite dewy-eyed. Some, however, are worth reading, particularly those of The Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, and the New York Observer. In selecting the excerpts I did I’ve tried to give you the flavor and sense of the endorsements. Most are considerably longer than the portions I’ve selected.

Those endorsing Obama frequently point to the, er, protean character of Gov. Romney’s positions over time. Those endorsing Romney tend to note the prospects for success of the president’s doubling-down on what he’s done before, his characteristic stance.

The newspaper endorsements I’ve linked to and excerpted below are those of:

The Chicago Jewish Star (Romney)
The New York Observer (Romney)
The Tennessean of Nashville, Tennessee (Romney)
The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak, Michigan (Romney)
The Columbian of Vancouver (Romney)
The Orlando Sentinel (Romney)
The Herald of Everett, Washington (Obama)
The Winston-Salem Journal (Obama)
The Lincoln Journal Star (Obama)

I did find one newspaper endorsement of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. It is so embarrassing I have not linked or excerpted it. I can only speculate on what the editors were smoking when they wrote it.

19 comments… add one

  • Ack! Too many endorsements to read!

    How can anyone who passed basic arithmetic in elementary school believe that a tax on those earning $250,000 or more, something the president has supported for some time, will balance the budget? There may be other reasons to support a tax limited to the highest income earners but balancing the budget ain’t it.

    Yeah, but (a) it might help and every little bit helps (DEATH TO BIG BIRD!) and (b) the social contract is more likely to endure with shared sacrifice. Those would be the two best arguments in favor.

    The problem is that this proposed tax hike seems to be practically the entirety of the President’s proposals to balance the budget, and one half of his proposal to revive the economy. (The other half would be the jobs bill he proposed but that even he doesn’t care about.)

    I keep waiting for the October Surprise – I still think it’s going to be the President actually telling us what he wants to do next term.

  • Here’s the exact quote from the Lincoln Journal Star’s endorsement I was reacting to:

    It may be true that Obama will raise taxes, although he has promised not to raise them for people making less than $250,000 a year. If that’s what it takes to bring America’s finances into balance, so be it.

    Nothing there about being just a start or the social contract. If there had been, I’d’ve agreed with it. But that’s it. They think that we can balance the budget just by taxing people making $250,000 and over. If that’s what people are taking away from the president’s position (and he’s given them every reason to do that), it’s simply stupid.

  • Tell it, brother. Stupidity ain’t something YOU can show.

  • Aha! The issue was with her husband.

    Once I laid down the law in an email to him, she and I are getting along fine.

    Good luck, pretty girl!

  • Under my maiden name, I had a charge account with Neiman-Marcus.

    I discovered it again after I got that rat’s ass out of my guest bedroom.

  • Yeah, I’m wearing the red Noconas and listening to blues-rock coming through open windows on a beautiful fall day.

    The Great Mississippi Balloon Race is on this weekend.

  • God bless the Napoleonic Code.

  • We had a discussion about that boy.

  • steve

    “By and large I’m pretty shocked at how vapid most of these endorsements are if not outright stupid. How can anyone who passed basic arithmetic in elementary school believe that a tax on those earning $250,000 or more, something the president has supported for some time, will balance the budget?”

    Aye, but it does have the merit of being a concrete proposal. Romney will cut taxes by 20% and end NPR funding. That is about all we know about his plans. Maybe Medicaid cuts.

    Steve

  • Abandon battlestations. Let’s go get a beer.

  • Damn Yankees!

  • Goethe called these “Elective Affinities”.

  • Look, Kiddos. I didn’t spend the equivalent of of $150,000 for nothing.

  • I guess it comes down to “Yes, We Can.”

    A poor girl from South Oak Cliff, and a professor’s daughter from Ruston, LA.

    Yes, we can.

  • Truly strange, isn’t it?

  • Y’all ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I’m about to get on a horse again. God help me.

    One of Lyman’s best friends was in a a Mercury on the parking lot at the Market when I went to pick up something. Her daughter keeps horses.

  • You have the Ariats, you have to ride, don’t you?

    They’re equestrian boots.

  • Let’s not be facetious here.

  • One thing I will say is I don’t care at all who endorses which candidate. It would never affect my opinion. Do endorsements really change peoples’ minds. Does it really matter who Eva Longoria likes? If so, why?

Leave a Comment