Des Moines Register Endorsement of Romney Makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121027/OPINION03/121026026/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&nclick_check=1It seems to me that this "endorsement" of Romney for POTUS actually makes a better case for re-electing President Obama but ultimately concludes that since he hasn't fixed everything in four years, it's time to try Romney because he has "fresh economic policies" (because he's white? Cause his "policies" are certainly NOT "fresh" IMHO)
"The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."
Ummm.........somebody get the DMR some charts about unemployment and GDP since 2008-2009.
"The president’s prescription upon entering office was a dose of government stimulus, which was the right call because it put cash in the pockets of consumers, made investments in vital infrastructure and kept millions of teachers and police officers on the job. That stimulus was necessary to bridge the nation from recession to recovery, but the time is past for more government stimulus."
So, the DMR believes that the stimulus was the correct thing to do then but not now? The time is past for more government stimulus? Where is the evidence for this assertion? Why wouldn't more stimulus be helpful? The economy is recovering, albeit slowly. A little more stimulus/push in the right places could potentially make a huge difference IMHO.
"Early in his administration, President Obama reached out to Republicans but was rebuffed. Since then, he has abandoned the effort, and the partisan divide has hardened. That has hampered not only the economy, but the entire country. We remain a nation of red states and blue states."
So, the DMR ACKNOWLEDGES that President Obama tried to work with Republicans but didn't want to work with him and the hardening of the partisan divide that the DMR appears concerned with is supposed to be all President Obama's fault? Really? DMR goes on to tout Romney's supposed good relationship with Democrats in Massachusetts but they overrode almost all of his vetoes during his term as Governor. Doesn't that suggest that maybe they did NOT actually get along all that well?
"Romney could be assured that Democrats would work to defeat him as hard as Republicans worked against Obama is if he were to adopt the reactionary agenda of the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. Romney had to tack to the right during the primary season. Since then, he has recalibrated his campaign to focus on his concern for the middle class, and that is believable if the real Mitt Romney is the one on display as governor of Massachusetts who passed a health care reform plan that became the model for the one passed by Congress."
DMR appears to be engaging in wishful thinking here about the kind of President that they would want him to be but can't possibly be sure that he will be. Nobody has any clue about what he will be like as President. We've spent four years with President Obama and, like it or love it, we all know what he stands for. BTW they do realize that Romney says he wants to repeal his own (nationalized) plan, don't they?
"Romney should not squander an opportunity to build consensus in Washington by wasting time on issues that animate many in his party. We cannot rewind the clock on progress for minorities, women, gays and lesbians. We must make it easier for immigrants to come here to live and work legally and stop making criminals of those who are living here lawfully, paying taxes and raising families. The federal government must continue to insist on clean air and water and encourage clean and renewable energy."
More wishful thinking here. Besides, we know President Obama already supports equality for minorities, women, gays and lesbians, supports comprehensive immigration reform and clean air and water and encourages clean and renewable energy! How do they know that Romney will stand up to the religious right and not pander to them on social issues. He's repeatedly claimed to not support any serious immigration reform and he has ridiculed President Obama about renewable energy during the entire campaign. Who are they endorsing again?
IMHO the entire argument for electing Willard "Mitt" Romney to the Presidency of the United States of America essentially boils down to "Take a chance on me". Well, I sure as hell hope the American people decide (unlike the DMR) not to!
BTW, whose hand is he shaking in that second picture?
= new reply since forum marked as read
we may lose Ohio too.
they are owned by Gannett as well as the Detroit Freedom Press. Did you see that papers' endorsement of Mitt Romney? THe Des Moines Register is also owned by Ganett whose owner is a conservative Republican. Could there be a skunk here? Their endorsements sound similar? All three right out of Mitt Romney's playbook. That is what you when you have the monopoly of many of the country's newspapers. Ganett's owner is also into layoffs,firing and downsizing and outsourcing. What they really like is Mitt's way of doing business. The rest Romnesia. I'm really liberal one day but the next strictly conservative when you see my choice of endorsements. We reject your prescription of Obamacare because it hurts our profits in the health industry for profits. How is that for an endorsement? 
What's the problem?
I know that most of us around here will yawn and move on with our lives but there are some people whom take this stuff seriously. Whether it will have a profound effect on the election or not none of us know (maybe, maybe not) but it's hard not to want to call BS on something so flagrantly offensive as this endorsement, particularly when it might well carry some weight with some people (i.e. low information voters), not to mention the fact that Iowa is going to be close this year.
they do appear to think that things aren't going to be much better, economically, if President Obama gets a second term.
"The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."
They also seem to believe- simply on the basis of his support of the same policies that were in effect from 2001-2008- that Romney will somehow turn out be that elusive "confidence fairy" that our "job creators" have needed for the past 4 years:
"Consumers must feel more confident about their own economic futures to begin spending on the products and services that power the economy. A renewed sense of confidence will spark renewed investment by American companies. Industry will return to full production and hiring will begin again.
That should come with Mitt Romney in the White House."
Seriously
They are also seriously delusional if they think that Romney is going to (be allowed to) govern as a moderate if elected POTUS and, even if he does, the Republicans in the House are going to go apeshit and quickly abandon him, making HIM a one-term President as well.
