John Foreman: Obama's first term shows our judgment was sound

John Foreman: Obama's first term shows our judgment was sound

Four years ago, this newspaper quite unwittingly published the most controversial editorial in memory.

In hindsight, I regard it as one of our best.

We declined to endorse Barack Obama for president, favoring instead Sen. John McCain. It really wasn't a close call in our mind, and we were wholly unprepared for the outcry.

It was not that we didn't like Obama; we did. In fact, we were an early supporter in his quest for the U.S. Senate. (He called me himself to thank us for the endorsement.) We regarded him as bright, charming and articulate, with a seductive message of unity and optimism.

And while we weren't impressed with his very brief Senate career or the early decision to cut that short and run for president, his promise of a post-partisan, post-racial America was appealing. His election as president would make history, and American was ready. I know conservative Republicans who voted for him on that basis alone.

We were not sufficiently seduced, however, to ignore McCain's superior experience and accomplishment in facing a host of national problems.

A host of readers reacted. It wasn't just that they disagreed with us; it was as if our view was entirely illegitimate — an opinion no one had the right to hold. Disbelieving we could take a stance so at odds with their own certainty, some actually cancelled their subscriptions. I'd never seen reaction like it to an editorial, certainly not to an endorsement — where, after all, about 50 percent routinely feel differently.

The fact is, I shared their hope if not their conviction. I watched the new president's inauguration two months later with the appreciation of witnessing a historic moment. For the first time, any little boy really could grow up to be president, and this was a cause for celebration, whether Obama was our first choice for the job or not. And perhaps he really could match the rhetoric that stirred so many.

Sadly, our assessment of the young Illinois senator could not have been more accurate. He simply wasn't ready to be president. He was an undistinguished part-time senator who lacked any significant background for the nation's highest office. He gave an inspirational speech, to be sure, but the presidency requires more than stirring stump speeches.

Obama failed the most important challenge on the national agenda — restoring the American economy. His post-partisan promise proved to be rhetorical fiction, and he quickly became a figure as polarizing as his predecessor, squandering his early political capital with a widely disliked remake of the health care system that took precedence over any other goal. The candidate who promised the most transparent administration in history achieved the defining accomplishment of his first term in a late-night, straight-party vote in favor of a bill so hastily crafted and so complicated that most of those voting on it didn't even understand it.

Worse, the time, energy and goodwill it consumed came at the expense of crafting a bipartisan solution to the far more pressing concerns of the economy. While home mortgages turned upside down, foreclosures soared, businesses collapsed and unemployment reached highs unseen in decades, the administration pushed changes in health care that wouldn't be implemented for years to come.

His approach to the economy, by contrast, was simplistic, unimaginative and, in some part, counterproductive. The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression seemed almost an afterthought on his agenda.

His costly stimulus package to create "shovel-ready" jobs produced barely a handful, and his extension of unemployment benefits to stimulate consumer spending had no discernible result. Only his bail-outs of Chrysler and General Motors merit acknowledgement, and it can argued that they were more style than substance.

His major initiative — Obamacare — was precisely the wrong policy at the wrong time. It created new uncertainty for employers unable to discern its cost and helped prompt a wait-and-see attitude at the expense of badly needed job creation. And gargantuan cost projections, coupled with the other spending, raised new concerns that taxes might increase as well.

More than anything else the administration did or didn't do, Obamacare prevented a more accelerated economic recovery. In short, this president not only failed to produce the desired improvement, in no small measure he may have prevented it.

Those are the mistakes of a rookie with little real knowledge of how the private economy works and of one wedded more to sweeping ideology than practical problem solving.

Today on these pages, we endorse Mitt Romney — an individual with proven leadership skills — to replace him. Perhaps that will produce another outcry. But frankly, even here in Obama country, I doubt it.

###

No failures in Washington, D.C., hold a candle to the legislative malpractice committed in the state of Illinois the last two decades.

And no one should cast a vote for anyone returning to Springfield Tuesday before acquainting themselves with the recently released report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force, a national blue-ribbon panel charged with studying widespread financial problems in the states.

It minces no words on the quality of the state of Illinois' governance — although similar criticism is by now so oft repeated that it may have lost its capacity to shock.

Illinois' finances are THE WORST of any of the 50 states, the report says, largely as a result of "gamesmanship" by our elected leaders. Among the myriad negative consequences has been a failure to stimulate the job growth necessary to help solve the problem.

"Illinois' budget is not fiscally sustainable," the report concludes. "It cannot simultaneously continue current services, keep taxes at current levels, provide all promised benefits and make needed investments."

The task force was co-chaired by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker and included heavyweights the likes of former Treasury Secretaries Nicholas Brady and George Schultz and former U.S. Budget Director Alice Rivlin.

But it was the group's other co-chairman, former New York City transit chief Richard Ravitch, who extended the indictment beyond Illinois' politicians, telling Crain's Chicago Business that "the average voter and much of the media" are not even focused on the problem in Illinois.

"I think it going to reach a point where there's either social disorder or bankruptcy before people will act," he said.

Illinois is past the point where something's got to give. It's nearing the point where everything will have to give. The status quo or anything like it simply won't work anymore.

John Foreman, publisher of The News-Gazette, can be reached by mail at P.O. Box 677 in Champaign or by email at jforeman@news-gazette.com.

Sections (2):Editorials, Opinion
Categories (2):Editorials, Opinions
Tags (1):2012 election

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

lovemahomet wrote on November 04, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Thank you, Mr. Foreman! I agree wholeheartedly!

syzlack wrote on November 04, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Sound judgement, indeed.  Harrumph, harrumph.  An oratation delivered in the grand fatuous manner of Victorian era blather; much rhetoric saying absolutely nothing beyond pricking at your usual paranoid resentments.  Foreman at his best. 

Mark Taylor wrote on November 05, 2012 at 12:11 pm

You say that like it's a bad thing.

spangwurfelt wrote on November 06, 2012 at 9:11 am

Another reminder why it's really not a terrible thing that, every four-year election cycle, the Republican base shrinks and the Democratic base grows. Old white men don't run this country by themselves anymore, and they're demographic is getting smaller all the time. Studies show that every four years, this country gets two percent more Democratic, and John Foreman demonstrates why the dinosaur vote is going the way of the dinosaur.

fuddrules wrote on November 07, 2012 at 3:11 pm

>>Old white men don't run this country by themselves anymore, and they're demographic is getting smaller all the time. Studies show that every four years, this country gets two percent more Democratic<<


I agree with the above and notice the continued downward spiral of our country.  Both your statement and my statement will continue the trend until.......

Mark Taylor wrote on November 07, 2012 at 10:11 pm

That's right!!1! The fewer old white men there are in this country, the worse off the country is. And that's also true the more Democratic it gets (we all know why, don't we?).

bryan_05 wrote on November 04, 2012 at 9:11 pm

How can an endorsement of Romney simply be non-statistical evidence against the President? I was hoping for a little inspiration/information on what makes Romney a "proven" leader.

Mark Taylor wrote on November 05, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Be prepared to wait a while...

Political Observer wrote on November 04, 2012 at 9:11 pm

Hate to tell you this, Mr. Foreman, but most of your editorials read like they've been copy-and-pasted right off of Rush Limbaugh's webpage.  This one, in particular, reads like you've copy-and-pasted Rush Limbaugh congratulating himself for how extremely brilliant and prescient he consistently finds himself to be.

As I run my mouse over your text, though, I'm very greatly disappointed indeed that I don't seem to be able to find a link to your incredibly ingenious observations of 4 years ago (along with the very unfair, and, I'm sure, totally inaccurate reader observations by those who were probably just jealous of your uncanny ability to predict the future). 

That's OK, though, John...I guess we'll all just take your word for it. The thought does occur to me, though:  Have you considered submitting this "I Told You So At The Time, Didn't I?" column for some kind of national competition where you could win widescale recognition for your incredibly awesome skills in writing opinion columns? 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 1:11 am
Profile Picture

I often disagree with Mr. Foreman's editorials, and I disagree with some of what he said in this one.  However, the Rush Limbaugh comparison is lazy and unfair.  Pairing any conservative with the most unsavory figures on the right is comparable to those on the right branding anything they disagree with as "socialist."  Just empty, inflammatory name calling.  Maybe you should compare Foreman to Glenn Beck and Michael Savage too, just to complete the right wing talk show host trifecta.  

Point is...are the News Gazette's opinions often hyper-partisan?  Well, yeah.  However, they never even come close to being as vitriolic as Rush's bloviations are.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 2:11 am
Profile Picture

Sad thing, too, is that Mr. Foreman is pretty much correct in this editorial.  It is pretty clear at this point that Obama was not prepared to be President, and that McCain was more qualified.  Maybe or maybe not more ideologically sound than Obama, but clearly more qualified.  Democrats really shot themselves in the foot by not nominating Hillary instead in '08.  As president, she would likely have been leagues better than Obama has been at maintaining the appearance of leadership and of effectively communicating her message to the public.  Obama should have waited until 2016, and built a name for himself in the Senate.  He could have learned how Washington works while in the Senate, instead of learning how Washington works while in the Oval Office.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 05, 2012 at 11:11 am

I was amazed that Mr. Foreman managed an attack on President Obama, and transitioned to the doom of the State of Illinois financial problems.  Social disorder, or bankruptcy predicted by a "former" New York transit officer!  States cannot declare bankruptcy.  The have the ability to raise taxes, increase fees, etc. which prevents them from declaring bankruptcy.  Of course; that was not mentioned by the "Blue Ribbon panel", or Mr. Foreman.  The editorial went from attacking the Democrat president, encouraging support for a Republican candidate for president, to the collapse of the State of Illinois.  He killed three birds with one stone.  The only things missing were cartoon illustrations.

Are the readers of the News Gazette really that gullible?  The gullible ones are not the ones reading.  Radio, FOX News, and cartoons are more appealing to the gullible ones.

fflkommish wrote on November 05, 2012 at 1:11 pm

"States cannot declare bankruptcy."

Under Obama, I wouldn't bet against states declaring bankruptcy - those "rules" don't apply to him.

(How many of the broke states are rock solid blue states?  Why doesn't that bother Democrat voters?)

Mark Taylor wrote on November 05, 2012 at 2:11 pm

I know, right? That dang Obamao is going to REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION if we let his STEAL THE ELECTION.

And you're right -- forget about the 'fact' that red states are net takers of federal money. That's one of those liberally biased empirical realities that gets in the way of REALLY UNDERSTANDING what's going on.

Some blue states have budget difficulties -- that's all you need to know (don't consider 'facts' like red states mooching off of those blue stats) and just know that a corporate raider and job outsourcer who will bring back all of Bush's old people is the right choice to permanently fix the economy.

fflkommish wrote on November 05, 2012 at 3:11 pm

"Some blue states have budget difficulties"......yeah, that's one way you could put it.

California and Illinois do what the Democrat party wants....and look how well it works out for them.  High taxes, high spending, big pensions....has it led to great wealth and prosperity?  No.  The taxes are never high enough, and you drive away tax-paying residents (often getting tax "takers" in return) and job-creating businesses.  The deficits are out of sight.  Why would anyone think it would be any different on a national level?

syzlack wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Might I suggest you move to the low-tax paradise of Mississippi?  It's really a quite charming place under the Magnolias in the moonlight.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Thank you for the suggestion.  fflkommish neglects to say that Illinois has a lower tax rate than most of it's neighbors.  Notice his rant about the "high pensions"?  He parrots the propaganda that the GOP media spews out.  Maybe, he will "self deport" himself to a more right wing locale?

"Mississippi welcomes immigrants from other states!  Ya'll come down!  Be what you were meant to be!"

fflkommish wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 pm

and still no one answers the question.....are you not bothered by the huge deficits in Illinois, California and New Jersey?  I really want to know.

Do you think Illinois could raise taxes to California levels and all would be well?  Or that somehow a magic bag of money is just going to show up and all the retired teachers and state workers will keep getting their pension checks?  Or you will be dead by the time it gets really bad so you just don't care?

 

Mark Taylor wrote on November 05, 2012 at 5:11 pm

That's right. Illinois has confiscatory tax rates -- up until recently the sky high percentage of a 3% flat tax. THAT'S HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!!!!!!11!

And drive on the roads in states like Arkansas and Mississippi -- sure they're gouged and full of pot holes. But those are just FREEDOM HOLES and LIBERTY GOUGES. They make the ride interesting, stimulate the auto repair industry, and remind you that you're in a wonderful red state paradise and aren't corrupted by economic powerhouses like Chicago.

I've considered 'self deporting' myself to the old confederacy many, many times. Then I could take all those federal tax dollars from you sucker yankees.

And just keep ignoring the fact that Illinois, like almost all blue states, subsidizes those red state tax havens through the dang FEDERAL GOVERMINT!!!!!1! When facts contradict our claims -- it's our right as a REAL AMERICANS to ignore those facts and call anyone who points to them a SCIENCE LOVING REALITY ADDICT!!11!

That'll shut em up.

jthartke wrote on November 05, 2012 at 5:11 pm

"Freedom holes". Tee-hee.  Wish I could go there, but I'm running for office for Pete's sake.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 05, 2012 at 7:11 pm

fflkommish;  Do you think that Illinois could do without the pork barrel spending for campaign donations, and votes?  Do you think that Illinois could do without the tax breaks to the corporations like Sears?  Do you think that Illinois could do without the corruption in the legislature, and governor's office? 

Public employees earned their pensions.  Their employer did not pay the employer's payment into the pension systems.  The employees paid their share with every paycheck.  Yeah, it is time to pony up; and pay the debts owed.  If that means that you, and I will pay more in taxes; so be it.  States cannot go bankrupt.  Your rants, and raves against people who worked years to earn their pensions mean nothing to the realities of constitutional, and contract law.  

If you do not like it, move.  Only two states have no pension debts.  North Dakota is good this time of the year.  You will learn to like it.  

fflkommish wrote on November 06, 2012 at 10:11 am

I am not ranting against workers.  The Dems control Illinois, the Dems control California.  They have control over the breaks for Sears, the pork barrel spending for votes.  They are the "employers" who didn't make the contributions to the pension system.  And yet you still support them apparently.

Thank for answering the question though.  Taxes will have to go up, a lot, to pay what Illinois owes in pension obligations.  I suspect taxes on pension income will be one of the first increases we see.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 06, 2012 at 1:11 pm

fflkommish;  Just between you, and I; both parties are corrupt.  Both parties have conned the citizens.  None of the legislators retire depending only on their pensions.  We all line up on one side, or the other; democrat, or republican.  The skipped pension payments were done by both democrat, and republican legislators, and governors.  The two past governors of both parties are convicted felons.  During my 40 plus years working as a front line employee for the state; there were eight governors.  Four of them were convicted of crimes; and the other four should have been convicted.  Time will tell if the current governor gets indicted.

Your right about taxes on pension income.  However, one retired group cannot be singled out.  Currently, anyone retired does not pay state income taxes.  That will change in time.  All retirees regardless of their source of income will pay state income taxes.  

I want Madigan, Cross, Cullerton, and Quinn out of office.  I want them behind bars.  That is a bipartisan statement.  Drop the party lines.  Both of them are corrupt.  They might not be corrupt when they take office; but they have to become corrupt to stay in office.  It is Illinois, and it's corrupt political history.  We deserve better; but short of cleaning the State Building with ballbats, there is no answer to it.  Maybe, term limits; but don't expect the legislators to pass it.

ClearVision wrote on November 06, 2012 at 3:11 pm

"We all line up on one side, or the other; democrat, or republican. "

Not all of us.

EL YATIRI wrote on November 06, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Profile Picture

What sort of preparation is needed to be a puppet?  Do you really think that candidates are elected on qualifications?  To me it seems that what we get are telegenic, charismatic, demagogues who look good in the media.

Someone really qualified would never get nominated unless they were tall, good looking, and experts at dissembling and avoiding giving real answers.

How does Washington work?  What we have are professional politicians, most of them attorneys by training, with very few engineers, physicians or anybody with true managerial skills.  The sleazy politicians from both parties grovel for money from special interests and then serve their masters by passing favorable legislation.

Campaign promises are worthless, how often does any party honor their promises?

In the end we get what we deserve.  The american electorate is ignorant, uninformed, and irrational.  They respond to propaganda and manipulation.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 06, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Profile Picture

Amen, brother.  The whole system is rotten from the inside out.  I've come to the conclusion that meaningful change will not come until we have a massive nationwide crisis, either financial or otherwise, and possibly not even then.  Fatalist, I know, but how can any rational person look at our political system right now and not feel cynical and angry?

asparagus wrote on November 09, 2012 at 11:11 am

Hillary would have been a much better choice.  At least she has served us well in foreign policy.  I don't agree with her ideology but I trust her experience and political savvy. 

rsp wrote on November 05, 2012 at 11:11 am

It always amazes me that it's always solely Obama's fault. He wasn't elected with a magic wand. When one party refuses to fulfill their constitutional obligations and represent the interests of the people in their districts instead of their political party, nothing gets done. All of the historical information says a crisis like the one left to Obama takes about 10 years to recover from. It's been four. But it is nice to know that the News Gazette believes any boy can grow up to be President. 

 

Mark Taylor wrote on November 05, 2012 at 12:11 pm

The president personally promised to permanently end racism and partisanship in this country. YES, HE DID!!!!!!!!11!!1!

And, there are still, I know, both people who are racists AND people who are partisan. STILL!!!!!!!!!1!

Ergo, OABAMA FAILED!!!!!1!

YOU WERE SO RIGHT, NEWS-GAZETTE. How did you know he wouldn't be able to end racism and bring an end to Republican obstructionism?

Such foresight. You are rightly to be (self) congratulated.

rsp wrote on November 05, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Some of those are the same people.

vcponsardin wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Profile Picture

Fortunately, Mr. Foreman, your influence is nil.  Your newspaper is too small and too insignificant to have any effect whatsoever.  Especially in such a blue state as Illinois.  I'm pretty confident that you can count on one hand the number of people who are waiting for your editorial to see who they should vote for--and I'll bet they all have the same last name as yours.  So, opine away knowing that your editorial views have even less influence than a 14 year-old cat playing the kazoo on YouTube.  (PS--Friends, neighbors and colleagues began taking bets as to when your paper will finally cease publication.  I have $40 on March of 2014.  Care to join the pool?)

bluegrass wrote on November 08, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Well, that is one of the silliest comments I've every read on this site.  Anyone who takes the time to read the newspaper likely has their own opinion as to whom they're going to vote for, be it the Des Moines Register, the New York Times, or the News Gazette. 


What you need need to realize that it is not Mr. Foreman's paper; it belongs to the community.  We're lucky enough to live in a small town where some very intelligent, forward thinking, community minded forefathers and mothers made some good decisions that allow us to have locally owned and run media outlets.   


I hesitate to feed your anger, but only a short-sighted person thinks that this town would be better off with the News Gazette and WDWS in their current form. 


I will give you credit for how you so thoughtfully deconstructed all of Mr. Foreman's points, and showed us how great of a job the president has done in the last four years.  Very well done!

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 08, 2012 at 2:11 pm

bluegrass;  I agree with you that we are fortunate to have locally owned media outlets.  However, you are missing the point.  A less politically biased news media would serve us all better.  A media that presents news, and ideas in a non-partisan manner would generate more thought, and less propaganda.

You could always use the "discussion forum" for propaganda.

bluegrass wrote on November 09, 2012 at 9:11 am

I would agree that a less politically biased news media would serve us better...  If only we could do something about that pesky first amendment.


Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting my comment was not appropriate for this particular thread?  Sid Saltfork, the commenter that can turn almost any discussion to pensions in Illinois?..

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 09, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Freedom of speech is essential in a democracy.  The means in which to use it is essential also.  There was a day when the community had two newspapers.  One partisan media outlet controlling the one newspaper, and one of the radio stations exerts an advantage over the freedom of speech of others.

bluegrass, you have the right to express your opinions the same as others.  It is freedom of speech.  In fact, I enjoy your comments.  They seem to be increasingly in the minority though.  I mentioned the discussion forum only because it seems to be the place that most libertarians, right wingers, and conspiracy theorists hang out together.  I thought that you may feel more comfortable there than being rebutted by the majority opinion in the comments to articles. 

By the way since you mentioned it; Gov. Quinn is continuing to implement SB 1313 requiring employees who earned their health care to pay an unknown amount of the pensions for continued health care.  This is inspite of pending law suits on the legislation.  Amendment 49, the deceptive attempt to steal the employees pensions, was defeated also.  Just wanted to keep you up to date.    

dennisg72 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Been awhile since I've read a News Gazette editorial but seems as if not much has changed with the "snooze gazette".  Still mired in the mud.  Out here on the West Coast its promising to see that the State of Illinois has shown good sense in supporting President O'Bama.  Too bad about the NG.  Never has been representative of the progressive community Champaign-Urbana deserves.

Mr. Foreman, I don't know much about you but your diatribe, reflects a lack of good judgement and is so unfair its not worthy of a great deal of comment. 

Some things don't change.  Illinois football and the News Gazette's leadership.  Both losers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

read the DI wrote on November 06, 2012 at 10:11 am

Blah blah blah ... a registered Republican working for a Republican paper endorses a Republican candidate for president ... blah blah blah

 

Just a lot of nonsense. McCain has a screw loose. Every morning I wake up and thank the lord that that nutcase isn't in office and we aren't fighting even MORE wars.

 

Romney is a hack. Running a business is completely different than running a nation. In business, you care about the biggest customers; the small guys are completely dispensible. In government, the people who need you most are your WORST customers. Romney won't even win his former state of Massachussets. Shows how effective they thought he was.

STM wrote on November 06, 2012 at 1:11 pm

There are none so blind....

Everything wrong in our economy right now is due to policies and politicians whole-heartedly endorsed by the News Gazette.  Mr. Foreman is wrong again...predictably.

mankind wrote on November 06, 2012 at 2:11 pm

If McCain had won in 2008 and then keeled over from old age, Sarah Palin would be president. Look how much presidents age when they are in office. Just because McCain hasn't dropped by now doesn't mean he wouldn't have under the tremendous strains of the presidency, and then we'd have one of the greatest idiots of our time trying to steer the country through one of the greatest economic crises in history. Obama's shortcomings don't change the fact that your endorsement four years ago was even more reckless and irresponsible than this one.  

bluegrass wrote on November 08, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Hmmmm.  So endorsing Romney is "reckless and irresponsible?"   Could you please explain how endorsing a former governor of a blue state who has been enormously successful in both the private and public sector is either reckless or irresponsible?  It's like libs just live to make up things to say when they sound cool to them.


Could you also tell us, how much, exactly, do presidents age while they're in office.  I'm curious about that.  I admit I'm not a huge fan of the policies of McCain, but I do know that he spent quite a long time in a Vietnamese prison camp where he was tortured, where he didn't "keel" over as you so eloquently put it.  I also know he's still alive today. 


Judging by your comments, you wouldn't know one of the greatest idiots of our time if you looked in the mirror.

read the DI wrote on November 08, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Winning one election out of four, then effectively taking off the final two years of that one office he did manage to buy, does not a successful politician make.

If you want to know what the Massachussets voters think of Romney, just look at how few of them voted for him. The man's the biggest liar on the Eastern seaboard.

bluegrass wrote on November 09, 2012 at 9:11 am

Another brilliant argument: liar, liar, pants on fire.


I'm sure another 4 years of out of control government spending, power grabbing, picking and choosing winners and losers in companies and insdustries, picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and general appeasement of the growing tide of Islamic fundamentalism will put us in a much better path to prosperity.


 


 

Mark Taylor wrote on November 09, 2012 at 9:11 am

That's right!!! Obama's just a secret capitulator to radical Islam, isn't he. Hmmm. I wonder why that is? Hmmm. Hmmmm...

Hmmmmm.

And, he's gonna ruin the auto industry -- just you wait. You'll see. You'll be sorry you did what you did, America. Just you wait. Because, you know what?

You'll be sorry, that's what.

Yep. Just you wait, you such-and-such so-and-sos.

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 09, 2012 at 1:11 pm

bluegrass;  There is the discussion forum.  You probably will find more people that agree with you there.  However, I do not want to imply that you do not have the freedom of speech to post your thoughts in the article comments.

foremania wrote on November 06, 2012 at 7:11 pm

John Foreman, you joker! You're backing Romney like a blind dog. He has a poor record of bipartisanship. The Massachusetts voters rejected him so soundly he had to cut and run after only one term.

Mitt Romney is a two-faced snake! He's flipflopped on abortion, gay rights, taxes, defense, health care, and a host of other issues including the bailouts and stimulus spending. In essense, he's a pathological liar on par with Richard Nixon. He's even out-Clintoned Bill Clinton, he's that bad. Shame on you!

What don't you like about Obamacare? It's an updated, federalized version of Romneycare. It's laughable that you think health care is 100% unrelated to our economy! We're in the midsts of an insurance crisis with tens of millions of baby boomers retiring from an underfunded, ancient system, and after decades of wisping around blindly, Barack Obama had the guts to finally do something about it.

This, of course, is due in large part to the leadership of Mitt Romney's sole divisive term as governor. Without Romneycare, there would be no Obamacare. Kudos to him for being the only major leader of the last decade to reform such a major part of our economy that was falling into shambles. But, it's bad for the News-Gazette that you don't get this.

Recessions take years to overcome. We're in the second great downturn after the 1930s. The other was in the 1970s-'80s. That one has been fictionalized so grotesquely as to warrant a discussion by the American Psychological Association. Needless to say, the 1970s economy wasn't caused by Jimmy Carter (who post-dated the collapse), and the current crisis won't be ended if some halfwit Wall Street kiss-ass (a la Reagan) gets into the Oval Office. It will take years of effort, just like then, and no amount of preening by a matinee idol ever fixed anything of that magnitude. We're coming out of the Great Recession on stronger footing thanks to updated banking and fiscal policies, along with more certainty over our health care infrastructure. Obama's record on employment may be nearly identical to Reagan's (a fact you're infinity uncomfortable with, I'm sure), but his record on everything else financial is secure.

jdmac44 wrote on November 07, 2012 at 12:11 pm

 

What did anything that he had to say have to do with being old, or white, or male?  The mentality underpinning your comment is precisely why this train is about to run out of rails.  Why don't you try to actually refute his arguments with ones crafted in logical counterpoints, rather than racist, sexist, ageist belittlements?  They will be little solace when his predictions come true.  This is the failure of democracy, that everyone has equal say in the fate of everyone around them, no matter how ignorant they are.  If you are in the political minority and know better how to chart your fate than those in the political majority, too bad, you simply are granted a better seat to foresee the raft going over the falls with.

syzlack wrote on November 08, 2012 at 9:11 am

" What did anything that he had to say have to do with being old, or white, or male?"

Um, actually, everything.  As Highbrow Limbaugh, aka GF Will, noted in today's Snooze, demography is destiny!  

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 08, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Why did it take them so long to realize that?  It is American History 101; the Melting Pot, and Diversity.