New York Times Endorses Barack Obama

The New York Times has endorsed President Obama. It leads with the dangers of a Romney win:

  • The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold.
  • The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster.
  • An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives.
  • Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.

As to Mitt:

Mitt Romney has gotten to where he is by guile (read: deception.) He's embraced the failed ultra-right policies and ideologies of the past.

Obama's achievements:

  • carrying out the economic stimulus,
  • saving the auto industry,
  • improving fuel efficiency standards, and
  • making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.
  • most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The reform law takes a big step toward universal health coverage, a final piece in the social contract.
  • prevented another Great Depression.
  • attacked Al Qaeda’s leadership, including the killing of Osama bin Laden.
  • ended the war in Iraq.
  • “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule was finally legislated out of existence,

The Times forgot to include:

  • Crack cocaine penalties were reduced from 100:1 to 18:1
  • His executive order allowing a two year deferment of deportation for undocumented young people


Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms. He wants to use voucher programs to shift more Medicare costs to beneficiaries and block grants to shift more Medicaid costs to the states.

Obama v. Romney:

If re-elected, Mr. Obama would be in position to shape the “grand bargain” that could finally combine stimulus like the jobs bill with long-term deficit reduction that includes letting the high-end Bush-era tax cuts expire. Stimulus should come first, and deficit reduction as the economy strengthens.

...Mr. Romney’s economic plan, as much as we know about it, is regressive, relying on big tax cuts and deregulation. That kind of plan was not the answer after the financial crisis, and it will not create broad prosperity.

Romney's Advisors:

[Romney] has surrounded himself with Bush administration neocons who helped to engineer the Iraq war, and adopted their militaristic talk in a way that makes a Romney administration’s foreign policies a frightening prospect.

The Supreme Court

The future of the nation’s highest court hangs in the balance in this election — and along with it, reproductive freedom for American women and voting rights for all, to name just two issues. Whoever is president after the election will make at least one appointment to the court, and many more to federal appeals courts and district courts.


Mr. Romney opposes same-sex marriage and supports the federal act, which not only denies federal benefits and recognition to same-sex couples but allows states to ignore marriages made in other states. His campaign declared that Mr. Romney would not object if states also banned adoption by same-sex couples and restricted their rights to hospital visitation and other privileges.

< Obama: Un Presidente Para Todas | Hurricane Sandy in the East, Tsunami in Hawaii >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    The Des Moines Register embarrassed itself by going against every position it has taken on major federal policy:

    Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation's single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

    Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate. [...]

    That stimulus was necessary to bridge the nation from recession to recovery, but the time is past for more government stimulus.

    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. [...]

    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.

    I wish I'd kept track of how many times the DMR editorialized against Republican policies on health care reform, Medicare, taxes for the top income bracket, immigration, civil rights, etc.

    This endorsement makes no sense to me. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:22:53 AM EST
    Romney stands opposed to adjust about everything the DMR claims to support. And do they really think Romney is going to forge those compromises with Congress? Seriously?

    And what is with the belief in the confidence fairy? Electing Romney will not, despite what Mitt claims, instantly and automatically create a sense of confidence and well-being in either the markets or consumers. I can't believe the DMR editorial board fell for that particular crock.


    yes, i saw that, and thought to myself, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:23:48 AM EST
    "self, i thought, it's all over but the shouting. if that sensible shoe, mid-west des moines register is endorsing romney, then it's a done deal."

    of course, i then awakened from that pizza induced nightmare, and started laughing. when's the last time anyone really cared what the editorial writers at the des moines register thought? there's a reason they're at the des moines register, and not at the nyt's or the wp. granted, neither of those two are the caliber publication they once were, but people do still pay attention to them. i can remember the last time i had a conversation that started with, "do you know what the des moines register editorial page said?", because that would be............never.


    I read that. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:24:57 AM EST
    The DMR editorial board's almost willful naivete about Republicans, particularly in light of the GOP's behavior over the past dozen years, is simply astonishing. One wonders what other internal dynamics were at work here.

    There was a day... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    when what the Editorial Board of the Register said meant something.  That was back when it was a family run business with roots that ran deep into the fabric of Des Moines and Iowa.  

    Now it is run by carpet baggers sent from Gannett headquarters.  They have no connection to the community, only to the corporate masters out East.  It has been in decline ever since.  

    I was doing the Iowa Poll when the Gannett boys rode into town in '85.  That's the day I knew it was time for a change and soon after the car was packed and I was heading West.  


    I saw this earlier. (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:02:21 AM EST
    I don't know what difference any paper editorial makes other than, "aha, so that's where I live."  But if you think Romney will forward the goals of minorities, women, and gays and lesbians, you are clearly none of the above.  Damn right we can't rewind the clock, damn wrong he won't.  

    "We cannot rewind the clock on (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    progress......"   Oh yeah, just watch us (cf. Republican Platform and Mitt).  

    The NYT's preface to its editorial, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    Barack Obama for Re-Election encapsulates it all. "Mr. Obama has earned another term, Mr. Romney offers dangerous ideas, when he offers any."

    When was the last time the NY Times endorsed a (1.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    Republican or heck, a 3rd party candidate for President?

    That shows just what this endorsement is worth. Almost nothing at this point.

    The New York Times endorsed ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    ... Gen. Dwight Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956, Gov. Thomas Dewey in 1948, and Indiana businessman Wendell Wilkie in 1940. Here's the list.

    Thanks for proving my point. (2.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:09:48 PM EST
    56 years ago. 14 Presidential elections ago.
    And that was just to endorse a candidate from one of the two major parties who had already been elected once.

    My take was that it was (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    not Donald's intention to prove your point, but to answer the question you asked.   And, he probably did not think of it as a trick question--endorsement of a candidate from one of the two major parties who had already been elected once.  But that answer was also provided--that would be 60 years ago (1952, the election between the incumbent Truman and the challenger, Eisenhower).

    As to the value of the NYT's endorsement, that issue is discussed by the Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan.  She does give varying viewpoints and notes Tom Rosenstiel, director of the project for excellence in journalism, a research organization, who believes editorials are important, not because of whom they endorse, but because of their reasons.


    saving the auto industry + (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by IrishGerard on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:01:12 AM EST
    Ohio may very well save Mr.Obama's ass but, ironically, it was the Bush Administration that really saved the auto industry (TARP) and laid the groundwork for restructuring.

    Also, the timetable to end the war in Iraq was inked by the Bush Administration and Nuri Al-maliki before Barack Obama took office.

    On killing Osama BinLaden, well, I think the CIA deserves most of the credit for tracking OBL's courier for the previous seven years and the SEALs get the credit for killing him.
    Definitely appreciate BHO's decision to green light the mission and for burying OBL's sorry ass at sea.

    Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Pres.Obama. not because he deserves a second term, but simply because he is the lesser of two evils.
     Barry is very fortunate to be running against weird Willard, an extremely flawed candidate.

    how'bout those Giants!

    OMG really? The CIA gets credit for (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:36:05 AM EST
    Bin Laden?  Some magic CIA that runs smoothly no matter who is President?  Some benevolent CIA that chooses its own missions and goals?  You just pull that out of your Hooey and run with it?

    My spouse was part of the behind the scenes military that Obama sent into Afghanistan.  There was almost no consistent military infrastructure, there was intel being gathered by the Bush administration either...none.  They hired that whackjob B.S. artist Dewey Clarridge who cost us a fortune and made $hit up.  Who in the CIA was tracking Bin Laden's courier during the Bush administration?

    If you want to say that Obama's CIA gathered the intel that found Bin Laden while Obama's military protected them in every way they could....fine....cuz that is what happened.  It was Obama Obama Obama that allowed us to be able to not just get Bin Laden, but fully understand and begin to really have to deal with the reality of Pakistan.


    SEAL credits 'fiesty' female agent (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Rojas on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:07:33 AM EST
    The CIA operative who led Navy SEALS to Osama Bin Laden's lair was a "wicked smart" and " feisty" female agent who spent five years tracking the terror mastermind and wept after he was taken out, according to one SEAL's controversial new book.

    Where do you think she got the funding? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    Who has been paying her to do it and making sure she has all the assets and approval to do it?  I know what the SEALs say, I read the book.  And then they killed him.

    In the meantime, the way the whole system operates is completely due to President Obama...completely.

    Remember how we gathered intel that was useless everyday in Iraq under George Bush?  Remember Abu Ghraib?

    Now read Nate Silver's book about the signal and the noise.  Bush administration = complete noise machine, they made noise for their own selves to listen to......Obama administration = looking for and listening to and for the signal.  Bush = failure of enormous magnitude   Obama = Success and the HUGE bad guy is dead


    MT..... (2.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    In the meantime, the way the whole system operates is completely due to President Obama...completely.

    He also does windows, picks up cleaning and makes a fine cup of coffee...



    He is leader who understands (4.50 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    What being a successful leader entails.  He delegates to those who are accountable.  He doesn't have a flock of lawless soulless PNACers who hands everything off to while he clears brush at the ranch.  I know it drives you crazy jim, but he is the CIC you always wish you had voted for.

    He is a man who put politics above (1.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 05:48:20 PM EST
    saving the lives of our citizens in Bengazzi.

    To me he is and will always be responsible for their deaths.


    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    it makes perfect political-strategic sense that Obama would put a low priority on protecting the lives of U.S citizens in Begazzi.

    All one has to do is adopt your topsy-turvy, Bircher-paranoid, conspiritorial point of view, and it all makes pefect sense. Hannity.  


    He did what he did for whatever reason he. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    The election was in 2008 (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rojas on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    "agent who spent five years tracking "

    My husband spent five years in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:49:32 AM EST
    All assets diverted to Iraq, everyone else ignored.  Everyone who served with her group left too until Obama, I wonder why?  Because the slot was a career ender under Bush.  She was the only one who remained when her Bush leaders didn't give a rip how she spent her day because there was no incentive to.  She deserves credit too, but she would have never got this done without Obama...NEVER

    With the way assets were diverted to Iraq I can't see how she would have ever had the assets to even find Bin Laden.


    Sorry for typo (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:37:52 AM EST
    Clarification:  There was no consistent committed intel being gathered by the Bush administration that would lead us to Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

    Just wrong (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Rojas on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    If we can trust the information that has been released.
    The courier who eventually led us to Osama was identified by the CIA in 2007.

    If Osama bin Laden (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    had been killed in February of 2009, you might have an argument.  He wasn't.  As is well-known (but apparently forgotten) Obama promised to making finding OBL a priority.  Romney did not agree with that, and neither did McCain.

    The priorities, the people and resource management - that credit goes to Obama.

    The auto bailout was a set of specific decisions, not just TARP.


    I want Obama to win (none / 0) (#1)
    by kmblue on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    but I'm worried about it.  I hope we don't have a rerun of 2000, with Repubs rioting in Florida.

    Love the TL graphics. (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 12:17:39 AM EST
    And heartily agree.

    Benghazi (none / 0) (#4)
    by stonecutter on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:00:48 AM EST
    Yeah - no way I trust Romoney with the disposition matrix

    BREAKING: Tsunami Warning. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:17:26 AM EST
    There was a 7.7-magnitude earthquake tonight in the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coast of British Columbia, and the NOAA / NWS Pacific Tsunami Center has just issued an official warning that a tsunami has in fact been generated, and is due to arrive in the islands in less than three hours, at or around 10:45 p.m. HST (2:45 A.M. MDT).

    The civil defense sirens are now sounding here in Honolulu, so it's time to get ready in the event we're called upon to evacuate once again, like last year after the Japan quake. Talk to you all later.


    Be careful. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:57:31 AM EST
    Between this and Sandy, finally feeling a little good about living in Texas.  At least our disasters are man(conservative)-made...

    hey donald, be careful. (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:25:39 AM EST
    Thanks. We'll be fine. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:42:22 AM EST
    Hopefully, it won't amount to much, but we don't take chances out here when it comes to tsunami warnings.

    The worst tsunami disaster in American history took place in the Hawaiian Islands back on April Fool's Day in 1946, with 146 people killed and several thousand left homeless from waves generated by an 8.0 earthquake in Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

    In Hilo, the first two tidal surges came in at less than one foot in height, which led to a fatally false sense of complacency because the third surge, which arrived about one hour after the first, rolled into Hilo Bay at nearly 400 m.p.h. and 35 feet in height, and completely wiped out the entire center of town.


    Here's an historic and famous photo ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:01:52 AM EST
    ... taken that fateful day in Hilo in April 1946, at the very moment the tsunami came crashing into town. As you can see, there is a man
    standing in the far left side of the picture, struggling atop some debris. Sadly, he didn't make it.

    Here's another photo from that same day in another part of Hilo, as the surge poured over the seawall and into the center of town. The look on people's faces says it all. Here's the aftermath.


    Okay, it's official: We're out of here. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:28:38 AM EST
    We just got word from the police, who are going door to door, that we're to evacuate to Niu Valley Middle School.

    Here's the online live feed ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:48:00 AM EST
    ... from KGMB-TV / KHON-TV in Honolulu, so you can follow events in real time.

    We're now at our designated evacuation center in Niu Valley, and I'm posting onthe school WiFi. The first surge is predicted to be two meters high, and is expected at 10:30 p.m. HST, about 45 minutes from now.

    Just talked to Younger Daughter at UH-Hilo, and she said the university itself is an evacuation center, so she doesn't have to go anywhere. Residents of the Keokaha District (seaside of Hilo airport) are being brought there.


    glad you are fine (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:16:14 AM EST
    I'll put up a weather thread, let's keep this to the election. Thanks.

    Stay safe ... get high n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:03:24 AM EST
    Sounds like advice (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:38:44 AM EST
    for kdog this week.

    My first vote for President (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:14:21 AM EST
    was Humphrey vs. Nixon. I would've voted for Rev. Moon before any Republican since then. And, as much as I've been so profoundly disappointed in President Obama the thought of a Romney Presidency is almost too much to bare.

    But, having said that, an Obama victory, for me anyway, would not be a cause for jubilation, simply a brief respite in the seemingly inexorable
    march towards a Kafkaesque Fascist State under the iron rule of our 1%.

    I think the American people, unconsciously, understood that in 2008 when they fervently, exuberantly, voted for "Change." Yes, I mocked them for voting for a blank script, but, to their credit, they were saying, "We don't know what, or where, but take us away from the past 8 years are far and as fast as you can."

    So, here we are, four years later, instead of looking at a blowout victory, we're praying for a fingernail finish, and depending on demoralized, despondent, and duped former supercharged supporters dragging themselves to the polls to do their duty.

    Why so depressed? Because they know this is just a brief interlude; the 1% have won. And, I believe most of them share with me the indelible thought, "it didn't have to be this way."