Well, we have reached that stage in the four-year cycle when the New York Times announces its endorsee for President of the United States. For the last couple of weeks, the whole nation waited with baited breath to see who the old grey lady would come up with as its recommendation. Speculation has been fueled over the last few days by a number to traditionally liberal newspapers doing a backflip and giving Romney the nod.
Liberals who rely on advice from the Times for a reason to vote Democrat were in a spin. Was it possible that a backflip was on the cards and the coveted endorsement could go to Romney? Heaven forbid; that the lead of the Chattanooga Times could be followed and the Johnson-Grey LP ticket got the nod. Could it go to Virgil Goode, a real turn-up for the books?
Fortunately for the left, none of this is going to happen:
The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. … embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster. An ideological assault from the right … to undermine the vital health reform law … are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. … cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. … the very right to vote is being challenged.
That is the context for the Nov. 6 election, and as stark as it is, the choice is just as clear.
President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. … sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, … to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. … impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery. …
So there you have it folks. Romney = recession like the current one, Obama care repeal, ‘war on women’, possible attacks on Americans in Libya, and denying the deceased the right to vote and restrictions on voting more than once. Obama, all good things to all people, … lots of free stuff, ‘sensible budget, maybe even get to present one, Democrat talking points …This was entirely expected. NYT has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower in 1956, meaning that nobody under the age of 77 has voted for anyone other than a Democrat on the advice of this paper. The best bit though is the interactive feature, which details endorsements through the ages. Even better is to scroll through to their
Look at the ringing endorsement for LBJ: -
In his frenetic dashing about the country, President Johnson stuck mainly to the safety of pious platitudes, interlaced with cloudy visions of the “Great Society.” …… It just cries out the quality of the candidate.
Well if you didn’t like that lets see why they liked Carter enough to recommend him over Reagan: -
Again and again Jimmy Carter seemed to be all sail and no boat, what did he do when his popularity sank in 1979? He fired half his cabinet and blamed the public for succumbing to malaise. …..
Mr. Carter’s economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through. But (here’s the good part, probably written by their finance editor) isn’t muddling through just where economics is today? …. You can just see why they considered him a top man.
No, there is no satisfying you people, well here is why Mondale got the tick: -
Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag.
All right, that didn’t get you to vote the Donks in, the Dukakis one will do it surely: -
Michael Dukakis is not the unfocused incompetent his late and lame response made him seem. …. Now really you have to back a man of that quality.
The paper has backed five Republican contenders in the 132 years since 1880, McKinley, Taft, Wilkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower. Supporting them 6 times (twice for Ike) in 33 elections has to seem fair.