In picking a president, obstructionism rules
 |
| (Alex Brandon/Associated Press) |
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm, WashPost
I’ve spent the morning reading various endorsements of Mitt Romney for president, and they all say the same thing: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked.
Okay, that’s not quite how they put it. But it’s precisely what they show. In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!
That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney.
Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “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.”
The paper goes on to note that “early in his administration, President Obama reached out to Republicans but was rebuffed.” The problem, they say, is that “since then, he has abandoned the effort, and the partisan divide has hardened.” I’m not sure that’s an accurate read of the situation — Obama spent most of 2011 negotiating with John Boehner — but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that’s how the Register sees it, and it stands in contrast with Romney, who “succeeded as governor in Massachusetts where he faced Democratic majorities in the legislature.”
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Is there any consistency when a newspaper endorses a candidate ?
For example, as the article states, the Des Moines Register endorsed Romney ... but it also endorsed Christie Vilsack for Congress ...
The premise is that Obama could not deal with Congress because they had too many jerks ... so read the Register endorsement :
Every time the Register’s editorial board meets with Rep. Steve King, we are reminded why we endorsed him a decade ago. He is articulate, personable and full of energy. Yet, about 15 minutes into the conversation, we are reminded of why we later withdrew that endorsement and why the Kiron Republican should not be representing Iowa in Congress.
King has typically had weak or underfunded opponents. This time, his opponent, former Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack, has made a frontal assault in trying to make a case why she should replace him.
[SNIP]
The nation needs to implode the partisan gridlock shackling Congress, and that plays to the Ames Democrat’s strength and is a significant reason she is our choice in the 4th District.
She talks about bringing a new perspective to Washington and a willingness to hear all sides and work toward bipartisan solutions. That emphasis on bipartisan solutions is sorely needed.
King seems to amuse himself by being as partisan and vitriolic as he can be. He has had 10 years in Washington to cultivate his inner-statesman, but he has failed to do so. It’s time for Iowa to make a change.
Vilsack assures voters that she can be “a problem solver, not a partisan fighter.” That is the right approach. [SNIP]
Steve King is "King of the TaxEnoughAlready Movement ... obviously President Obama would be more effective without Steve King ... so how does that make sense to endorse Romney?
BTW ... did you read the Strib's endorsement for John Kline ? They applauded his work to reform NoChildLeftBehind and the need for Simpson-Bowles type of reform ... except, Kline has failed to get a House vote on his complete five-part reform plan (and the Student Success Act was rejected by the US Chamber of Commerce calling it "Bad for students, and bad for taxpayers") and Kline voted against the Simpson-Bowles plan ... so why did they endorse him ?
Post a Comment
<< Home