Reply With Quote
Final paragraph sums it up perfectly.
Tribune endorsement: Too Many Mitts
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.
More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.
Therefore, our endorsement must go to the in bent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...ident.html.csp
Final paragraph sums it up perfectly.
fight me boutons
Yeah, final paragraph pretty much nails it.
gfy, less
meet me at walgreens
What they meant to say was:
Therefore, our endorsement must go to the in bent, a competent leader who, against obstructionists, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
gfy, less Internet tuff guy
this is kind of embarassing
Because I'm totally serious boutons
still a serious thread..and on a serious note, speaking of slaps you ready for Gecko to come out swinging tomorrow and put the hurt on your boy O' ? This gecko is going to turn into a dragon and roast the president to a crisp on live tv.
Express-News goes for Barry
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...rm-3965052.php
Salt Lake City Tribune went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and supported Obama in 2008 and again this year. Obama lost Utah by 277,000 votes in 2008. Orlando Sentinal backs Romney. Draw your won conclusions.
The tribune sold after the 2004 election. It's not locally owned now and is owned by a hedge fund.
Salt Like City itself is not an ultra-conservative city and it's not the extremely Mormon part of Utah. The smaller towns in Utah are the extremely Mormon right wing areas. This is by no means good for Romney but it's not THAT big of a deal.
NoWhereLand Utah isn't a big deal for anybody except Utawns. 5 electoral votes
I like Salt Lake City.
No, the newspaper of the Mecca of the Mormon faith endorsing Romney's opponent and calling him out for dissembling.
Gecko and 1% are "en led" to no shame, no pride, no embarrassement. Their $Bs immunize them to normal emotions and concerns. The billionaires do love to whine if anybody says anything bad about them, like "fat cat bankers", or claim their 1% is warring the 99% which provokes them to say they are pitiful victims of the class war from the 99%.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
