NY Post Endorses Mitt Romney


For America’s future, The Post endorses Mitt Romney for president

Four frustratingly long years ago, a war-weary and economically battered America took a flier on a savior.

It didn’t work out.

Now, in 12 days, the nation will return to the polls — to reject, or to ratify, the results of the great Barack Obama experiment.

That is, to reject or to ratify the notion that hoping for change is a sound footing for productive national policy.

But, by the evidence, it is not.

It cannot create jobs.

It cannot reduce deficits.

It cannot restore foreign confidence in America — or Americans’ confidence in their own great nation.
AP
Mitt Romney

America needs more than hope. It needs leadership. That is why The Post today endorses the candidacy of Mitt Romney for president of the United States.

Scrape it down to bedrock, and Mitt Romney knows that there is but one issue in this campaign: America’s woeful economy, and the demonstrated inability of President Obama to cope with it.

Obama says he inherited the mess, but he’s done nothing to fix it. Borrow, spend, regulate and redistribute is not a prescription for sustainable growth, yet that has been the totality of his program.

He says things will get better — soon. But there’s no evidence for that.

Obamanomics has produced:

* A sky-high national debt, now at a stupefying $16 trillion and growing.

* Intractable unemployment and a workforce hemorrhaging discouraged workers.

* No perceptible economic growth.

* Historic expansion in welfare programs — especially food stamps.

Obama proposes massive tax increases aimed not so much at the rich, as he claims, but squarely at the middle class and small business, which is insane: Small business — the real engine of American job creation — needs to be nurtured, not squeezed dry.

Americans need jobs — jobs for those trying to raise a family, jobs for those who are leaving school, jobs period!

Instead, they are about to be saddled with an unworkable health-care boondoggle that will suck hundreds of billions from a private-sector economy that could better use the cash to create — yes — more jobs!

Can Mitt Romney really turn all this around? Yes, he can.

In the debates, Americans saw a leader.

They saw a man with the experience, the temperament, the principles and the knowledge to address America’s economic woes instead of just blaming others.

After all, as governor of deep-blue Massachusetts, he worked with a Democratic legislature to close a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes or borrowing.

There is one other significant issue.

Four years ago, Obama vowed “to restore America’s standing in the world.” But he has sown rancor and confusion instead.

Our friends don’t know if they’re still our friends; our enemies wonder whether we have the courage to stand up to them.

The result has been a cataclysmic breakdown of US leadership in the Middle East.

Israel — and not just Israel — questions whether Obama is committed to curbing Iran’s nuclear threat.

Syria is in open civil war, while Egypt and Libya teeter on the brink. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but al Qaeda has hardly been contained — as Benghazi tragically proved.

In contrast, the smoke now hanging over the Middle East testifies to Obama’s inability to get the job done.

Any job.

Because, in the end, the fundamental problem is the president’s core philosophy.

He believes in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity — and that is not how America is supposed to work.

America is not working right now.

Forward?

For four more years?

We think not.


Okay, it’s not exactly as shocking at the NY Times endorsement would be, but it is a major thumbs up. One line in that editorial captures the essence of the argument against Obama:

It didn’t work out.


When it comes down to it, Barack Obama has been unable to make a positive case for his reelection. Presidents, like coaches and managers in sports, get paid to win. More often than not a new coach takes over a struggling team. He’s given a few years to turn it around. Miracles aren’t expected overnight, but after four years you expect to see signs of progress. If not, you replace him with somebody else.

Four years ago I opposed the election of Barack Obama because I thought he would be a bad president. My reasons are well known so I won’t repeat them here. But after he was elected I stated that I hoped he would prove me wrong because that would be a good thing for the country. Unfortunately, I was right.

This is not about the past. If Obama had enacted genuine health care reform and the economy was at least well along the path to recovery, I would probably hold my nose and vote for Obama in spite of everything that took place in 2008. But Obama failed.

It’s time to try someone new.


This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to NY Post Endorses Mitt Romney

  1. myiq—-you are a better person than I. I wouldn’t vote for Obama under any circumstances.

  2. DM says:

    Rupert owns the NYP. I’m not surprised. The WSJ is also owned by Rupert and I suspect that the WSJ will also support Romney.

  3. DeniseVB says:

    The Post wasn’t a surprise since it leans conservative, it might be a shocker for the other locals….NYDaily News and Newsday to endorse R. NYT hasn’t endorsed a Republican since 1956 …. so it would clinch the election for Mitt 😀

    • DM says:

      New York’s polls show voters overwhelmingly support Obama. I don’t believe an editorial would change those dynamics. Here in CA, the Chronicle, a SF newspaper, will often support Republicans, but SF continues to vote Democratic.

  4. tommy says:

    Like I mentioned at the end of the last thread, Romney has just raised a whole boatload of money. From Oct 1-17, he raised $111.8 million. Use it now in the vulnerable Bush states, and target the Gore states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. This is very doable.

  5. I am horrified to see the pre-loss shuffling that is starting to take place on the Democratic side. In my fantasies, when the Obama era was over, I figured the O people would just disappear whether they were vanquished (2012) or just finished their era (2016). I was being naive.

    That they are blaming Bill Clinton (and wasn’t he stupid for taking up with these snakes) for a possible loss, and telegraphing that if Hillary runs, the O folks won’t be around to help.

    Why would I have expected anything different?

    • myiq2xu says:

      A lot of O appointees will be trying to shift to permanent civil service positions so they don’t lose their jobs when Romney takes office.

      • Lulu says:

        This is called “burrowing in” and new administrations have a way of getting rid of them. The old pros have fun running them off.

    • DM says:

      Hillary just told the WSJ that she’s not running in 2016. I wouldn’t worry about that. If Romney wins in 2012, he would also win in 2016, unless he doesn’t do a good job. I expect Romney to do a good job. Hillary can read the tea leaves and she knows that 2016 is not going to be easy if Obama continues destroying the party and the country, or if Romney wins.

      Obama is the worst thing that could have happened to voters like me.

      • Mary says:

        Good points, there. If Romney wins, and manages to work with Dems to get things done re debt and economy, he’ll win again in 2016. Hillary may be thinking of that.

        • indigogrrl1 says:

          I believe that Mitt is going to be the repubs Bill Clinton but without the scandals. He is going to do a good job and reach across the aisle. Their purists arent going to like him any more than the dem purists liked BC.

      • Constance says:

        I have always been an Independent although I have registered with various parties so I could vote in the Primary. But Obama is the worst thing that could have happened to voters like me too. He has destroyed the party I used to vote for about 3/4 of the time. I can’t wait until the real Dems take their party back.

      • kanaughty says:

        he is the worse thing to happen to the democrat party. why did they all, and i mean all those dem leaders have so much faith in an empty suit? that was the stupidest political move ever in 2008! i hope the real dems find their way eventually, but for now i could never endorse any democrat who would ever have made excuses for this guy, this faux democrat.

      • bluestate says:

        if romney wins and hillary tries to run against him in 2016, she better have a case to make. if romney is doing a good job, i’m not voting for her just because she shows up and says, “hi, i’m hillary clinton.”

    • jjmtacoma says:

      The super leftists will still complain about corporatists and talk about 3rd parties.

      As far as the Obama contingent is concerned, some other historic shiny new man will come along. I don’t think they would ever vote for a woman.

      Maybe next time it will be Gary Locke who will be “historic”.

      • Constance says:

        Gary Locke is a good steward for The Peoples country. I would vote for him.

        • jjmtacoma says:

          Actually, I would too. That probably means he is not a good choice for the party.

          It was the scorched earth and gleeful cheating that did me in on Obama the first time around. If those things weren’t going on, I probably would have gotten in line.

          Of course, if those things weren’t going on, he would not be president anyway.

      • kanaughty says:

        he was my governor too, i would vote for him for sure. he has a lot of leadership experience compared to this supposed rising star who is a mayor for the first time somewhere and is hispanic but doesn’t know spanish. that to me sounds like the west wing candidate at the end of the series. i would have voted for alan alda in a second over that guy with no experience.

  6. myiq2xu says:

  7. piper says:

    Just looked at the 1980 presidential map – awestruck how Reagan wiped out the Dem. Jimmieh Carter with over 480 electoral votes winning 44 of 50 states (or out of 57 obama states). Carter only won Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland, West Virginia, Rhode Island, naturally Georgia and D.C.
    Probably will never see another huge win like this in my lifetime but I can hope and pray that this change will occur on November 6th.

    • DeniseVB says:

      As a Carterbot in ’76, that wore off when the magic didn’t happen as he promised to bring peanut farmer common sense to Washington, he was still a better man than Obama. He had faith, family and overall nice guy going for him, but very weak on the economy and national security.

      You may get your huge win again as Obama is so much worse. 😉

      • piper says:

        Denise, I agree with most of your assessment of Carter but he turned me off with anti-semitic speeches.

        My man Mondale also lost big time to Reagan.

      • DM says:

        I hope you know that 10 million jobs were created in the four years of his presidency. In addition, he’s the only president that was able to put a peace treaty with Israel. It wasn’t easy. In addition, one of his big economic problems dealt with inflation, which had been around since Nixon. Ford decided to use WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons to get rid of inflation. It was Carter that nominated Volcker to the Fed. Carter suffered because Volcker restricted money supply, making interest rates unbearable. But Volcker did get rid of inflation, if at a great economic pain, and Reagan benefited..

    • foxyladi14 says:

      I am very optimistic that we are going to see a rerun of that this year.. 🙂

  8. myiq2xu says:

    Cannonfire:

    Signs
    If you read the comments on right-wing sites, you’ll often encounter people who cite “signage” as evidence that the pollsters have deliberately under-counted Romney supporters. “Everywhere I go, I see yard signs for Mitt Romney. You never see Obama signs around here.” That’s the kind of thing they say.

    And they’re right.

    I can’t recall the last time I saw an Obama/Biden yard sign in or around Baltimore. Romney signs are relatively common.

    Yet everyone knows that Maryland is as blue as a suffocating Smurf.

    Conclusion: The relative dearth of Democratic signage proves only that Dems don’t dig signs.

    • votermom says:

      Yeah, that’s the ticket …

    • jjmtacoma says:

      JJM’s conclusion: the Democrats are ashamed to admit they are voting for another 4 years of nothing.

    • votermom says:

      Actually I have seen a few Obama lawn signs around here – they all went up literally at the same time – I think it was either after the VP debate or after the Crowley one. Mostly they are on public ground except for a couple that are on a Dem party operative’s lawn (who had otehr lawn signs but not Obama/Biden until then)

      • kanaughty says:

        there are some on the texas side of the border, but there are just as many romney signs. another thing is that they are on vacant lots not on people’s lawns the way romney signs are on people’s private property… the fact that these ob signs are on vacant lots is maybe ironic, like the empty chair. these signs here are also just the year literally that can be seen from a car driving by… it says, “2012” (the 0 is the “O” logo) and then in tiny type that you can’t see driving by it says their website. so really it doesn’t say their names on the sign. it is weird branding. i have an itch to drive by at night and put a ghostbusters mark up on those “O”‘s, so the sign says no to 2012 for ob. 🙂

    • kanaughty says:

      hmmm. i just think they are forgetting how many ob signs there were in 2008 for ob, so this definitely if anything shows a lack of enthusiasm for ob biden if there are way less signs. so how are they not seeing this as the fact of the evidence…. this proves less enthusiasm than romney in their area. they do dig signs and anything ob if they are enthused by him, and they just aren’t as enthused, period.

  9. Mary says:

    I thought the best line in the article was “Yes we can.”

    Made me chuckle.

  10. DM says:

    I finally got the courage to watch the Jon Stewart interview of Obama. It’s the worst interview Jon has done. And because I rarely see anything Obama, I was able to confirm again what an empty suit Obama is. If it wasn’t that I don’t believe in praying because I have total faith that whatever happens is for the best (God knows what he’s doing), I would be on my knees praying 24/7 for a Romney win.

  11. votermom says:

    This is a paper that deserves to die and I hope it does.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Such will go the NYT, ChiTrib and LAT. Why do they hate Amerika ?

    • kanaughty says:

      that editorial is, for lack of a better word, stupid. most of it makes excuses for ob while painting romney as a right wing nutcase. so it makes no sense to me because romney has no history of being that way.

  12. conner43 says:

    Endorsements, millions of dollars, blah blah. Let’s give some credit to the basic decency of many Americans. We may be hanging by a thread, but there are still more of Us than Them, and We Vote, even when it’s raining or snowing or we have to get a ride from a friend.
    Maybe some of President Romney’s decency will rub off on a few of Them in the next few years and save our country from the abyss of degradation and and total collapse.

    I knew O was an empty vessel when he carried on in 2010 as if the devastating mid-term elections never happened.

    • angienc says:

      I hope some of Romney’s decency rubs off on a few of Them too — but I doubt it. Obama calls Romeny a “bullshiter” (actual word) in answering a question on advice he’d give a 6 year old supporter — and I bet not one of Them cares.

      As he left the Oval Office, Eric Bates, executive editor of ‘Rolling Stone’, told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president and she had responded: ‘Tell him: You can do it.’

      According to Bates, Obama grinned and said: ‘You know, kids have good instincts. They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”‘

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223130/Keeping-classy-Mr-President-Obama-describes-Romney-bullshitter.html#ixzz2AKZ2Ll4s

  13. votermom says:

    CAGE FIGHT!

  14. votermom says:

    Mitt is having fun

  15. votermom says:

    Check this out, denise & lola

  16. tommy says:

    Dandy is right. Boots on the ground, calls and GOTV takes a lot out of a campaign. And money and volunteers are supreme. But just imagine Dandy, if Romney carpet-bombs Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut and Washington states with ads. To them, it’ll be a novelty, and exciting, and for the first time, they’ll feel like they’re truly involved in a presidential election. Due to that record haul, I have no doubt that Romney will easily raise over $200 million this month. Hope he uses it in the right way.

    • DM says:

      It takes a long time to organize a good ground game. Obama knew he’d be the candidate, but Romney had to wait for the primaries to end to even start his ground game. The Democrats have always had a better ground game because the unions are already set up to easily help candidates. The Republicans have zero support from unions, and that’s a handicap. The closest ready to go ground game the Republicans can use, is the churches, but their help is limited because they don’t want to jeopardize their non-profit status.

  17. angienc says:

    Pretty much sums up Obama: “Where’s my plan? I couldn’t find my plan!”

  18. angienc says:

    Front page of Des Moines Register sums it up:

  19. driguana says:

    Obama is…..well, a bullshitter.

  20. tommy says:

    Hmm…….looks like PA is lost to us. O-51 R-46. VA is doing better. 50-48 in favour of Romney.

  21. DeniseVB says:

    More about Hillary possibly sticking around awhile as brought up during today’s Carney briefing. Hint: Clueless 😉

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/10/25/white-house-thought-hillary-leaving/

    • DM says:

      Can anyone here think what the FP situation would be if Hillary wasn’t the SoS for the past 4 years? Can anyone imagine what it would be without Hillary if Obama won? It’s too horrible to think about it.

      • kanaughty says:

        i really don’t want her to stay there so that they can keep using her as a scapegoat. they are just using her and then blaming her and not letting her do her job. i still think benghazi was all o’s fault. this video idea came from the top and that hillary had to follow those orders even if they sounded like bs. so for me i hope she retires and let’s ob f things up for himself for now on if he is re-elected. although the best scenario would be romney wins imho…

  22. Mary says:

    Don’t pay any attention to the new Time poll showing Obama up by 5 in Ohio (49/44). Poll’s sample is D plus 9.

    Even Chuck Todd on Morning Joe laughed at the poll and told them it was tied.

  23. Pips says:

    If Hillary Clinton – or any other fairly and squarely nominated and elected Democrat – were now President, Mitt Romney would be but a blip on my radar.

    As it is, sheesh! … I find myself googling Romney to find out who is who of his sons. 🙄

  24. cj says:

    Chilling

    “Today I got a call, out of the blue, from the father of one of the Americans who was murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Charles Woods explained that he never calls talk shows, but was upset over news he had heard and just decided to call me.

    He talked about his son, Tyrone Woods, who was killed along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and two other Americans who were trying to save the life of the Amb

    After 37 years, there are still days that this business takes your breath away

    audio: http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/charles-woods-father-of-former

  25. gxm17 says:

    IMO, one indicator of how desperate Obamanation has become are the trolls posing as 3P supporters who are spreading disinformation and Romney hate in an attempt to get people like me (3P supporter in a swing state) from casting a protest vote for Romney. Their internal polls must be in the toilet for them to care about my vote.

    • kanaughty says:

      are you talking about someone in particular, maybe starting with a z? that is the one person that really turns me off of jws site sometimes. that guy is so annoying. he thinks he adds to the conversation, but i think he is a troll and i am tired of his bs… it wouldn’t be so bad if he didn’t throw up walls of text all the time and if he didn’t claim to know everything and that he is right all the time. i wish that guy would leave jws site. and i don’t like how some of the regulars defend him either. if they can’t see he is a troll, then i don’t know what to think…

      • piper says:

        I really think that he is a card carrying member of the obama team who shows as much narcissism as his hero. I’ll believe his spiel when he turns over his entire trust fund to charity.

      • votermom says:

        Me too – I tend to leave if he’s hanging around – just so much discussion derailment

  26. Karma says:

    CDS lives. Found this last week but I was behind on the board so wasn’t sure if it was posted previously.

    Hillary tried taking responsibility a full week prior to the CNN interview in Peru but the WSJ sat on the comment. While another part of the paper bashed her for being quiet. Apparently, she had to leave the country for the MSM to accurately report her comments on a major news event.

    Full article but links to the various cited articles at the Huff.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made big news Monday night by telling CNN that she accepts responsibility for security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, at the time of the deadly Sept. 11 attack.

    For weeks, the Obama administration has been dogged by questions over its initial explanation for the attack — that it was prompted by anger over an anti-Islam video on YouTube — and over security at the compound prior to the assault which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    “I take responsibility,” Clinton said Monday during a trip in Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

    While Clinton’s statement was news to most of the world, it apparently wasn’t to the Wall Street Journal.

    On Monday night, the Journal’s Monica Langley reported that Clinton made a similar comment to her in a recent interview. That comment had not previously been published.

    “I take responsibility,” Clinton told the Journal. “I’m the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family … It’s painful, absolutely painful.”

    Clinton sat for an interview with the Journal last Wednesday and there was no embargo preventing the paper from publishing any part of it, a State Department spokesman told The Huffington Post.

    While the interview may have been conducted as part of an upcoming profile of Clinton, it’s common for news organizations to extract timely material for a news story. Given that Clinton gave this interview on the same day as a congressional hearing on security at the consulate — and as criticism over the administration’s response gets amplified on the campaign trail — it clearly had news value. Indeed, the Journal led Tuesday’s print edition with the comment.

    A Wall Street Journal spokeswoman declined to comment on the paper’s newsgathering.

    Coincidentally, the Journal decided to publish a portion of last week’s Clinton interview Monday, the same evening the Journal’s editorial board decided to criticize the secretary of state in an editorial in Tuesday’s print edition for ducking questions on Benghazi. Traditionally, the editorial board does not collaborate with news reporting, but the timing is ironic nonetheless.

    The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple caught the Journal editorial shortly after it was posted and noted that it was tweaked after the CNN interview was published.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/hillary-clinton-libya-wall-street-journal_n_1969817.html

    • Karma says:

      My bad….WSJ held the info for five days….not a full week.

    • DM says:

      Another point that gets lost is that the State Department was honest with congress and told Issa and others in their house committees the day after the attack that it had been a terror attack. Now, it’s not up to congress to tell the American people the truth about such thing, therefore nobody from congress had a press conference to tell the American people the truth. It’s also not the place for the State Department to tell the American people about events like that. It’s up to the president to do so. Therefore, Hillary waited for Obummer to tell the public the truth, and when the WH told publicly September 19 that it was a terror attack, Hillary stated that truth in public too.

      • Karma says:

        Honk!

        And for Issa of all people to say how refreshing it was to get complete cooperation and more from State says a lot. Even Amb Bolton noted that State said it was a terror attack immediately.

        The walk back falls on squarely on the WH. Drudge had a picture of Hillary giving Obama the stare down at the Rose Garden. I have never seen her scowl at him like that before. She was clearly not thrilled with him. While he looked rested and fresh.

        http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120912&t=2&i=652252172&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE88B1OZ400

        Pick any of the pictures that day and compare them with how her face change with other people there that day,

        Such as this picture. Still somber but Hillary’s face has soften towards anyone but Obama.

  27. DM says:

    I wish I could put this graphic for everyone to see here. Nate Sliver:
    “among the various national polls, the one that the model rates most highly is the national tracking poll run by ABC News” That’s the ABC/WP poll link below.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/index.html

    • DM says:

      These polls: Rass, Gallup and now ABC/WP have Mitt at 50% and Obama at 47%. There’s agreement among the pollsters. How often has that happened lately?

  28. foxyladi14 says:

    It worked. Thanks Angelic. 🙂

  29. Timothy Dannenhoffer says:

    I ‘m a vile prog, hear me roar
    in smaller numbers than before,
    and I know I need to go back and pretend
    that it’s still 2008, even though it’s quite a chore;
    Obama’s down here on the floor
    And you’re stupid if you don’t vote for him again.

    Yes, I ‘m whining,
    but it’s whining from the shame.
    I don’t want to pay the price
    for the stupidity I displayed.
    For four years I have done anything;
    I am wrong,
    I am cynical
    I am vile prog.

    You can bend but never break me
    ’cause it only serves to make me
    more determined to call you a dumb shit
    And even though it isn’t helping
    I can’t stop myself from yelping
    like a dog on Obama’s dinner plate.

    I am vile prog, smell me stink
    ’cause I took a bath in the sink
    And spread my ass cheeks over your cheerios
    Because I’m just a brainless boob
    And I wish I had some boobs
    I forgot where this song was going to go.

    Yes, I am whining,
    but it’s whining from the pain
    of knowing Obama will lose
    and there’s no one else to blame
    but myself
    and my Obot friends
    He’s going to lose.
    I am vile prog.
    (fade)

Comments are closed.