OUCH! Washington Post Obama Endorsement Gets Downright Vicious!
on October 25, 2012 at 8:08 pmA refreshingly open and frank endorsement of the Obama administration, warts and all, almost pales in comparison to the hostile (yet still accurate) depiction of a hypothetical Romney presidency:
Mr. Romney, by contrast, has embraced his party’s reality-defying ideology that taxes can always go down but may never go up. Along that road lies a future in which interest payments crowd out everything else a government should do, from defending the nation to caring for its poor and sick to investing in its children. Mr. Romney’s future also is one in which an ever-greater share of the nation’s wealth resides with the nation’s wealthy, at a time when inequality already is growing.
I do disagree with the depiction of Obama’s response to the Iranian Green Revolution as ”hesitant and inconstant.” Anything more than a distant nod of support would have be seized upon as a pretense to accuse the protesters of being “puppets of the Americans.” The crackdowns would have been far, far worse if we had gotten involved in even a tangential way. However, the overall tone is pretty fair towards Obama.
I recommend you go read the whole thing yourself. But this is definitely the take away line concerning how unfit for office Romney is:
Every politician changes his mind sometimes; you’d worry if not. But rarely has a politician gotten so far with only one evident immutable belief: his conviction in his own fitness for higher office.
Can anyone, even Fox, make the claim that Mitt Romney is steadfast in his beliefs with a straight face? The Obama campaign should make a commercial out of this ASAP!
I really did not see that one coming. The Washington Post has become a flabby conservative shadow of its Watergate days, but it came through this time.
According to the Politics Blog of the October 25th New York Times (nytimes.com), “The charged anti-abortion comments made this week by Richard Mourdock, a Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, pose something of a dilemma for Mitt Romney. If Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, does not distance himself enough from Mr. Mourdock, he could find it harder to narrow his deficit with women. . .” *
However, shortly after the Todd Akin controversy, Governor Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, granted an interview to a reporter in what looked to be a hardware store in Virginia, and Ryan was asked about the issue of rape and whether or not it should be legal for a woman to get an abortion if she had conceived through rape. His reply?
“Well I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea, the position, that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” ** and ***
Excuse me? Is this not the very same thing which Richard Mourdock said, albeit not in exactly the same words? They both define Rape as a Method of Conception, and that Life Is Sacred!
If Mitt Romney and other Republicans see the need to distance themselves from Candidate Mourdock, then they need to distance themselves from Candidate Paul Ryan for the very same reason.
* http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/mourdocks-comments-pose-dilemma-for-romney/
** http://www.ibtimes.com/paul-ryan-calls-rape-%E2%80%9Cmethod-conception%E2%80%9D-echoes-controversial-todd-akin-comments-video-759465
*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk