Romney for president

Romney for president

Everyone wanted this country to prosper under President Barack Obama's leadership, but that has not happened.

Four years ago at this time, the enthusiasm over Barack Obama's impending election as president of the United States was palpable.

Once relatively unknown to politics, he skyrocketed from a political nonentity in the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just four short years. In fact, he's been president for almost as long as he was a national figure before being elected president.

In the long history of the United States, there's never been a politician who's risen further faster than Obama, and it's hard to imagine any president ever to have taken office with such grand (some might say grandiose) promises and in such a euphoric atmosphere.

Obama pledged to remake this country block by block, and there's no underestimating the changes over which he has presided. Obama and congressional Democrats passed a landmark health bill that will put the federal government in charge of one-sixth of the national economy, presided over an $800 billion-plus stimulus bill designed to lift this country out of recession and approved federal spending on such a grand scale that it's pushed the national debt up from an unhealthy $10 trillion to a disastrous $16 trillion. He embraced a liberal domestic agenda that would have left former President Lyndon Johnson, author of the Great Society, agog.

There's no question that Obama has many accomplishments. But the better question is whether those accomplishments have moved the country in a positive direction.

Our answer is no, and The News-Gazette endorses Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, in Tuesday's presidential election.

It's inarguable that President Obama inherited a bad economy from his Republican predecessor George Bush. Between the housing bubble burst and the near-collapse of the banking system, this country was nearly flat on its back.

Bush, before he left office, and Obama, after taking office, took steps to boost the economy — multiple stimulus packages as well as bailouts of the banking and auto industries. Some say those measures averted a depression, although that's impossible to state with certainty.

But for the most part, this economy has been stuck in the mud, unable to get out of a recession into a strong recovery. Economic misery, reflected by high unemployment, has been widespread. And while

Obama can blame his predecessor for the problems of four years ago, it's time for him to assume responsibility for his failure since then to address this country's top problem — the economy.

Rather than focus on the economy once he was sworn in, Obama myopically pursued his health legislation. His goal — insuring the uninsured — was laudable, but passing the biggest social spending program since Medicare at a time of economic misery was a terrible misjudgment.

Now Obama's Affordable Care Act, nicknamed Obamacare, hangs like the sword of Damocles over the job-creators in this country who are frozen into place because they don't know how much Obamacare will cost their businesses. Instead of an economic atmosphere and a tax policy that encourages investment and hiring, this country's private sector confronts uncertainty.

Romney has pledged to change that, and his background in private business suggests he knows what steps to take.

Obama has done a bit better in foreign affairs. 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was located and killed, and the president has pulled troops out of Iraq and is pulling troops out of Afghanistan. For that, a war-weary nation is grateful. Unfortunately, he has done so in a way that jeopardizes the gains made in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The world, of course, remains incredibly dangerous, no more so than in the Middle East where Iran's nuclear ambitions and Israel's determination to survive will soon collide. No president, Democrat or Republican, will be free of tough decisions and bad choices on the world stage. But Obama's response to those challenges, particularly with regard to Russia, North Korea and Iran, seem inconsistent at best.

That's one reason America is perceived to be in decline abroad. Another reason is that this country's finances are in a shambles. National strength depends on a successful, growing economy that provides jobs to those who want to work and tax revenues to support government programs.

It's pretty clear that President Obama wishes for this country to play a smaller role in world affairs. Unfortunately, if this country shirks its duties as the world's lone superpower, a slew of bad actors will move quickly to fill the vacuum, not just to our detriment but to the detriment of countries all over the world.

In our view, a new president is necessary, one who knows that more of the same is not acceptable.

In this race, Romney is that man. He's shown himself to be a strong leader who can work with Democrats and Republicans. He recognizes the major problems and, in contrast to Obama's limited pre-presidential resume, Romney brings to the table a long background of success in different fields.

Obama has had his chance to put the country on a healthy course. He failed and a new approach is required.

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

freedom2010 wrote on November 04, 2012 at 12:11 pm

WRONG!  Obama has done alot for this country that was living in fear 4 years ago.....The problem NEVER could've been fixed by any president in 4 years. Before you vote ask yourself?

1. Am I ok with women not having a choice with their own body? Romney wants to take this away from them.

2. Is Romney truthful in what his mission is? He's changed his story several times already.

3. Did Obama do a good enough job to deserve another 4 years? Yes, he saved GM  from going bankrupt, and several other positive things.

OBAMA DESERVES ANOTHER 4 YEARS!  

rsp wrote on November 04, 2012 at 12:11 pm

You mean like Romney's success at the Olympics? With the millions and millions in federal bailouts and so much money went to his buddies now donors that had nothing to do with the event? Or how about all the millions he pocketed off the auto bailout? I would call that a big success. Scooping up the company that makes needed parts for the cars and then demanding an exorbitant amount of money or you will withhold the parts. Can you say windfall at the taxpayers expense? Or are you talking just the run-of the-mill invest in a company, borrow heavily against it, give out the money to yourself as a "bonus" and then file for bankruptcy? And remember to call yourself a "job creator".

thelowedown wrote on November 04, 2012 at 12:11 pm

 

It's embarrassing that the News-Gazette printed this editorial.

 

First, this statement: "In the long history of the United States, there's never been a politician who's risen further faster than Obama." Well, check out Grover Cleveland. Less than a year as mayor of Buffalo, New York and two years as governor of New York, then president. We could also talk about Chester Arthur, who was a customs executive, spent less than a year as vice president, and then became president.

 

Second, "He embraced a liberal domestic agenda that would have left former President Lyndon Johnson, author of the Great Society, agog." Making a statement without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

 

On the economy, the News-Gazette says Obama hasn't done enough, but is utterly transparent and hypocritical in its commentary saying, "that's impossible to state with certainty" that bailouts averted a depression. Well, it's "impossible to state with certainty" that the economy would be any better off sans-Affordable Care Act or better if Obama had put a myopic "focus on the economy" since the same forces of low demand domestically and abroad and systemic credit issues would not have magically disappeared.

 

On Iraq and Afghanistan, the editorial board says Obama has wound down "in a way that jeopardizes the gains made in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan." What gains? In case the News-Gazette missed news and history over the last decade, Iraq was chaos without Hussein during the Bush administration and so was Afghanistan. Little has changed on the ground during the Obama administration other than a reduction in American forces fighting these conflicts, even with the Afghanistan surge.

 

The idea that “America is perceived to be in decline abroad” is a complete and total fiction. If the News-Gazette bothered to figure out how Russia views the Obama administration or realized the buffoonery of the Iranian regime, then maybe the editorial would reflect reality. On North Korea, the same enigma of four, eight, or even twelve years ago exists. Heck, it’s same enigma that existed in June 1950.

 

Showing more of its ignorance on foreign affairs, the editorial says, “Unfortunately, if this country shirks its duties as the world's lone superpower, a slew of bad actors will move quickly to fill the vacuum, not just to our detriment but to the detriment of countries all over the world.” Not only does the News-Gazette provide zero evidence for this assertion, it also ignores the fact that America is not necessarily a good actor. Would the News-Gazette like to justify our historical record of assassination, fixing of elections, overthrow of democratic governments and installation of authoritarian regimes from the 1950s on through at least the 1970s? Are these our “duties”?

 

On Romney, the editorial continues the non-reality track saying, “He's shown himself to be a strong leader who can work with Democrats and Republicans. He recognizes the major problems and, in contrast to Obama's limited pre-presidential resume, Romney brings to the table a long background of success in different fields.” First off, examining the Romney record as governor shows he was not able to work either Democrats or Republicans, the latter because they were virtually non-existent in the Massachusetts legislature in no small part due to Romney, that he was not effective at budgetary policy on his own terms of cuts to government, and that he was, at best, an absentee executive.  In fact, Romney was such a weak, unpopular governor loathed by his own Republican party and Democrats alike that he did not even bother to run for a second term. This is the “strong leader” the News-Gazette endorsed? I would laugh here, but the editorial’s logic makes me want to cry instead. And if Romney’s “success in different fields” does not exist in his term as governor, it must exist in his tenure as a businessman. So, assuming the News-Gazette actually knows Romney’s record, then it must be praising his record of job cuts.

 

It’s okay to oppose Barack Obama and it’s okay to support Mitt Romney, but it is troubling for readers and embarrassing for the News-Gazette when doing so is based on a set of assertions that are false to the core. 

read the DI wrote on November 06, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Well put. The notion that Obama is somehow more liberal than LBJ is so much nonsense. Obama is to the right of Nixon! Nixon was the one who started the EPA, who regulated the airlines and banks, who tried (and failed) to nationalize health care. What is the matter with this paper's collective memory?

Worse, no one knows where Romney stands, which is something the Snooze Gazette repeatedly flogged Pres. Clinton for. Is he for abortion or against it? Is he for the auto industry bailout or against it? Is he for the bank bailout or against it? Is he for the war on terror or against it? On and on it goes...

The truth is, the Democrats in Massachussets HATED Romney and it was Romney who went along with them, not the other way around. (That might also explain why Romney will get maybe 35% of the vote there this year.)

This is such a waste of virtual newsprint. The editors could have just said "2008: Ditto."

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

Outstanding! It gives Obama credit where credit is due. I have been increasingly distressed with the vast majority of news media, and feeling like balance and truth are buried and must be searched for. It's refreshing to see this editorial. I endorse both Romney for president and The News-Gazette for this excellent, balanced editorial!

freedom2010 wrote on November 04, 2012 at 4:11 pm

You would....I bet you dont live in candlewood either.

 

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

The Gazette endorsed a Republican!  I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!   The contortions to justify their hack statement are amusing though.  Let's not think about the support for George Ryan or his little apparatchnick Roddy Davis.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 04, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Profile Picture

I can't wait until Tuesday, when we finally figure out who will be our figurehead leader for the next four years, and which special interests our future will be sold to.  God help us.

EL YATIRI wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 am
Profile Picture

My sentiments exactly.  Who cares which puppet wins when the real masters remain the same?

A system of government so corrupt that instead of governing, the two parties spend most of their time groveling for money so that they can remain in power, and once in power engage in political theatre and obstructionism to any common sense solutions of our nation's problems.

Politicians who don't give a damn about liberty and freedom, who use scare tactics to steadily erode the rights of the citizen until now we live in a police state worthy of North Korea or Iran.

Endless wars, all over the globe, all undeclared by congress, none in the best interests of the US, sapiing the country of treasure and young soldier's lives and futures.

Professional politicians who just parrot the party line and talking points, no independent thinking allowed.

That's why I will not vote in this meaningless, sham democracy.

 

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on November 05, 2012 at 1:11 am
Profile Picture

"Four years ago at this time, the enthusiasm over Barack Obama's impending election as president of the United States was palpable."

 

... and who did you endorse then? Yeah, I remember that too.

 

You guys crack me up.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 am
Profile Picture

As a matter of objective history, this assertion is flat out wrong:

 

"In the long history of the United States, there's never been a politician who's risen further faster than Obama, and it's hard to imagine any president ever to have taken office with such grand (some might say grandiose) promises and in such a euphoric atmosphere."

 

It's embarrassingly wrong. 

 

It's so wrong that it makes me wonder why I'm reading your suggestions about governance.

 

It's the kind of wrong that makes one wonder "WTF were these guys thinking?"  It's a head scratching "do they not have access to the internet?" kind of wrong. It's so wrong it should leave the readers wondering whether you have access to American History in any recorded medium.

 

The examples of politicians (specifically presidents) who've risen further, and faster than Obama include:

 

Abraham Lincoln (one term Congressman, Whig Party, and failed US Senate Candidate, Republican Party, rural circuit lawyer)  Benjamin Harrison (one term Senator, lost reelection bid for Senate),  Theodore Roosevelt (big game hunter, amateur boxer, governor of New York for less than a year before his party sought to kick him upstairs, to the vice presidency; still regarded as the most popular president in the history of American populism, and possibly just plain history)  Woodrow Wilson (two years as NJ governor, no other political experience, repeat: none),  Warren Harding (launched a presidential bid during his first Senate term, his wife purportedly being the brains of the operation, including that family newspaper in Marion), Calvin Coolidge (popular for union breaking, governor of Massachusetts for two years),  Jimmy Carter (same number of years as state governor that Obama spent as US Senator, less time as a state assemblyman).

One of our best presidents came from nowhere, and was hated for much of history: Harry Truman (failed hat store owner and mama's boy turned planted stooge of Kansas City boss Tom Pendergast, took control of his own destiny and became outspoken critic of Washington corruption).

 

Andew Jackson was, like Obama, hugely popular with the people, and also served nearly no time in the US Senate. His military campaigns in Florida were as useless as Obama's legal academic career, right?  Of the other generals only William Harrison had government experience. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower had none.

On the other hand, Martin van Buren had a TON of political experience previous to his presidency.  So did James Buchanan. Come to think of it, you guys have a ton of experience being the News-Gazette editorial board.

Please do me a personal favor, and admit how wrong you were, in print.

EL YATIRI wrote on November 05, 2012 at 4:11 am
Profile Picture

The News Gazoo, a neocon/teatard rag, admit they are wrong?  All they do is parrot the zingers, memes and talking points handed to them by the RNC.

syzlack wrote on November 05, 2012 at 8:11 am

Good work, McColley, but you are clearly part of the reality-based community, and have no future in the new political discourse of Rove-Romney-Foreman-Dey.  Give it up and raise the black flag as Mr. Mencken advised.

Bulldogmojo wrote on November 05, 2012 at 9:11 am

If you want to find NG Editor John Foreman's office at the news gazette you go in the front door and just keep turning right.

killerut wrote on November 05, 2012 at 9:11 am

Wow.  A lot of people on here are really pissy that Obama may not actually win another four years.

I really hope he loses, and fades in to history.  I think maybe only Nixon was more corrupt than Obama.

Yes, he bailed out GM.  How are they doing today?  Ford did it on their own.  Their sales are booming.  GM, well, their stock is crap and their products are now crap.  Volt sales are practially non-existent.

Oh, what about all those green initiative companies that folded under his watch.  THe large bonuses paid to the execs of these companies. 

How can one even fathom another four years with this idiot?

Bulldogmojo wrote on November 05, 2012 at 10:11 am

Second only to Nixon? Were you even alive when watergate happened? Nixon created an actual shadow government for purposes of subverting the constitution.

I hardly think that Obama's struggles to undo the decades of damage that Alan Greenspan's miscalculations and the SEC's indifference in their enforcment division during the bush administration can justify your declarations of Obama being in a corrupted class of leadership like Nixon.

People only respect what is inspected and we are going through a long period of inspection of just how we opperate ethically as a country. If you think Romney is the guy for that job then I suggest you Google, "Bain and Company FDIC bank Bailout" before you cast your ballot.

If you want paranoid, pandering and egomaniacal like Nixon was I think Romney is your guy. 

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

Ford didn't do it on their own. They got a $6 billion low-interest government loan in 2009. They were able to use that loan to avoid the stimulus program so they can now say that they didn't take part in the program. They get a lot of credit for a job well done but they weren't exactly relying solely on business acumen.

wayward wrote on November 05, 2012 at 10:11 am

It's not quite as bad as the Pantagraph and Herald-Review.  Their endorsements of Rodney Davis have these strange word-for-word similarities, as if one heavily borrowed from the other.  At least the N-G's approach to writing editorials doesn't involve copy-pasting stuff that's appeared elsewhere.  That said, Rob McColley is right about the lack of fact-checking.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-th-th-congres...

http://herald-review.com/news/opinion/editorial/davis-schock-and-shimkus...

Political Observer wrote on November 08, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Todd Nelson is the person to contact in order to report cases of plagiarism:

"Todd Nelson is the Regional Publisher of The Pantagraph, The Herald & Review and The JG-TC."

http://herald-review.com/contact_us/

--------------------------

I know what you mean, though...Rotteny Davis was making a big deal out of getting the endorsement from both the Decatur and Bloomington papers...

 

cubfan62 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 10:11 am

  Mitt Romney is hardly a leader.  He is a corporate raider whose expertise was leading Bain Capitol which took struggling companies, gutted them sent most of their jobs overseas, and then sold them for profit.  This isnt job creation just profit making for him and his croanies.  Mittens was a one term governor, who wasnt considered very successful, he flip flops more than a fish out of water and basically stands for mostly the upper 1%  Ill admit Obama hasnt been the best at times.  But I'll take him anyday over Mittens!

mankind wrote on November 05, 2012 at 10:11 am

Your editorial is symptomatic of what's been ailing the GOP for the past 4 years. They have been great at pointing out theoretical drawbacks to everything that's been accomplished but they can't seem to muster more than vague platitudes about a better alternative. There are 20 paragraphs in this editorial and it isn't until the 13th that you mention Romney's qualifications at all, and then only in some of the vaguest terms possible ("he knows what steps to take"). Except for the 19th paragraph, which is again filled with vague praise for Romney ( he "brings to the table a long background of success in different fields") , the rest of the editorial is peanut gallery stuff. The GOP is fighting for relevance, but the problem is it has nothing to offer.  

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

The GOP is maintaining it's position based on money from the wealthiest, and the votes of the gullible.  Romney is caught between his big money base, and the right wing populace.  He has to flip flop back and forth on the issues to win election.  His party's platform, and his vice presidential candidate support the right wing.  In order to win, Romney must appeal to the middle.  He is depending on the gullible for the additional votes. 

This election has demonstrated that the voters have multiple issues that concern them.  The voters are becoming more issue oriented than party oriented.  Same sex marriage, abortion, family planning, gun control, gender equity, wealth equity, education, and health care have significance along with the economy, and foriegn affairs.  More voters are identifying themselves as Independents rather than the traditional parties members.  The GOP has not embraced the diversity of the current population.  As the white male vote diminishs so does the GOP.   

SKS3777 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 11:11 am

You are correct.  It would seem that the only alternative that we have at our disposal to take back our political system is to oust every incumbant, then wait until the next election.  If no changes or inadequate changes are made, vote 'em out and get a new crew!  But this is very difficult to organize.  The two party system has corrupted our democracy.  I am NOT, however, advocating for the teabaggers!  I'll stick with Obama, thank you very much.

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

 Obama got osama…that’s enough said, but Obama also took on the health insurance companies. If Obama wins, uninsurable, rescission and adverse selection will be divorced from health care. If Mitt wins, Obamacare will be repealed, and will not be replaced. Aetna has made the appropriate ‘donations’ to turn back the law. The economy suffered from near depression brought on by deregulation and the government had to borrow to stop the slide into depression. This resulted in a huge deficit and a severe recession, all used by the feudalists to blast Obama. This recession is like a two day hangover…Obama gives us OJ, mittens want to give us gin. Gin cause the recessions, deregulation allowed such practices as pick a payment and rubber stamping loan apps. And there are outright lies…business holding back on hiring due to health care…nope; it is a lack of demand. As for insurance premiums rising due to Obamacare, this is a lie…just an excuse to crank them up.  Recently, the feudalists are harping about Libya and Bengasi saying that Obama let 4 die; the reality is that Obama was not suckered into starting ww3. If he had, the feudalists would be harping about another war.

SKS3777 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 11:11 am

Thanks for making that point!

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 06, 2012 at 2:11 am
Profile Picture

"Obama also took on the health insurance companies"

Hilarious joke, I'm rolling on the floor!  Oh wait, you were being serious?

If by took them on, you mean he gift-wrapped a favorable bill for them (and for big pharma) at the expense of the American people, then yes, he took them on quite vigorously.

The health care law was largely put together by Liz Fowler, the former VP of public policy at WellPoint, the largest health insurance provider in the country.  The bill is a cash cow for big pharma as well.  Drug companies vigorously supported the bill, and spent a pile of money advertising in favor of it.  But I'm sure that was just out of the kindess of their heart towards the American people's health, and not because the bill was written to make them richer.

http://youtu.be/hZ5tj4cN9Jk

It's hard for me to decide whether to even blame Obama for the Rube Goldberg scheme that is the health care law, though.  I think he came into office hoping to make some sort of dent in the corrupt culture of Washington, but he then gave up very quickly upon realizing that the president doesn't have nearly as much political power and influence as megabusiness and lobbyists now have.  He realized that his two choices were to do as he was told, or to lose by 20 points in tomorrow's election after the health insurance and drug conglomerates spent every penny necessary to ensure his electoral slaughter.

SKS3777 wrote on November 05, 2012 at 11:11 am

I agree!  The article is clearly absent any real qualifications that Romney has.  Indeed, these past four years are not what any of us had hoped for.  However, all that we are facing didn't happen overnight.  I am reminded of the fat woman who thinks she should lose 20 pounds the first week on her new weight loss program!  NOT GONNA HAPPEN!  Historically, during a republican presidency. the "haves" and "have nots" become more defined, as the middle class loses ground.  So much of our country is living paycheck to paycheck, and this is not the lower 30% of net income earners!  Get a clue, NG.  If you are going to make a statement, at least get it accurate, huh?

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

It's not that important to deliniate Willard's qualifications.  What we need are reasons, however specious, to justify our rejection of Obama.  The best slogan I've seen in this long campaign was a T-shirt a fat white guy was wearing in Clinton:  Obama loves America like OJ loved Nicole. 

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

As a woman who was abused I cannot tell you how offended I am that you think it's a joke that a woman was murdered. You do not know the first thing about Obama and for you to compare him to a man who stalked his wife and killed two people is unconscionable.

syzlack wrote on November 06, 2012 at 8:11 am

Oh, it's no joke.  To clarify, read "best" as most offensive of a heap of offensive right-wing abuse that is all around us these days. 

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

I am disgusted that Media outlets can endorse ANY political candidate. It's unfortunate that we have lost Non-Biased media forever.

I also think Champaign-Urbana needs a new Newspaper...

 

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

WRONG AGAIN, NG!!

If this is all you can say about Romeny is: ".. he brings to the table a long background of success...", and you can't explain to me what that success is, other than he made millions for himself after his daddy set him up in business, well, no thanks. I would rather take someone who has overcome extreme difficulties of his mixed heritage, single motherhood, raised by middle class grandparents, attended one the best schools in the country, walked the streets of poor inpoverished neighborhoods, out campaigned a Clinton, saved an entire industry, brought the country back from an abyss, killed this country's most dangerous enemy, ended and war that claimed over 5000 american lives,  and has added over 5 millions jobs to an economy struggling under world pressures. That is the kind of man I want in the White House. Oh! I forgot one other quality, became a millionaire on his own and not from his daddy's money or influence. Mitt Romney???? Please spare me your always conservative unAmerican point of view. I won't get into the wrongs of Mitt, that would be another chapter. All I needed to know is that he is a liar. You cannot trust anyone who lies at the drop of a hat and smiles while doing it.

Jam wrote on November 05, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Obama is the most abortion friendly politician that we have ever seen.  He supports abortion in all cases.   Romney used to support abortion, but changed his position on that issue.  It is a terrible matter that there are democrats and republicans who support the killing of the unborn child under the guise that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body.  The real culprits are the medical people who apparently gather large amounts of money from this "act of terror".  There is another body growing in the womb.  Does the woman have the right to kill the second body?  When women get an abortion they are overwhelmed with guilt that will last them a lifetime.  There are women who have been faced with the real test of choosing their life or keeping the baby.  They have chosen to continue to let their baby live.  In this election and every election I choose to vote for life.  Romney/Ryan have the best plan for that debate.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on November 06, 2012 at 12:11 am
Profile Picture

With the right counseling and pharmacology, you can work past these anxieties and hallucinations.

rsp wrote on November 06, 2012 at 4:11 am

When women get an abortion they are overwhelmed with guilt that will last them a lifetime.

Actually that's not true. I have never met a woman who was overwhelmed with guilt. We are amazingly capable of making decisions on our own. Sometimes we wish the circumstances were different but every woman I've spoken to has said that she made the best decision for herself,  and frequently her other children.

Jam wrote on November 06, 2012 at 6:11 am

"best decision for herself and  frequently her other children". 

 

Sounds nice, but this was not in the best interest of the child that was killed. 

 

Alexander wrote on November 06, 2012 at 8:11 am

Then you should vote democrat -- since they support social programs that can help expectant mothers make the decision to keep their unborn child, rather than republicans, who offer to take those programs away thereby making the decision to abort easier for the disadvantaged.

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

Sorry.  Planned Parenthood is one of if not the largest proponents of abortion in the world.  The democrats seem to love this group.  This may be more about social engineering than it is concern for the unwed mother for which there are plenty of stories about the destruction in peoples lives that abortion causes. 

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

I don't refer to Planned Parenthood. I refer to providing social safety nets that makes it possible to contemplate the expense of a(nother) child. Anyway, have a nice day (no sacrasm intended).

rsp wrote on November 06, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Planned Parenthood? The only place where I could get prenatal care when I was expecting my son? The same place with two of my grandchildren? Where for years was the only place in town I could get any medical care? That's the place you are spewing you hate at? Your lack of facts? Maybe you should change the channel and get out more. Meet people. Volunteer someplace. How about Crisis Nursery? 

Shay wrote on November 06, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Romney has no plan my friend, not even for abortions. Worse yet the republicons have no plan. If they had they would have tried to get rid of abortion 12 years ago. They had both houses of the congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Now, what do you think happened? They didn't want to put women in jail for deciding what to do with their own bodies no more than I do. I made that choice a long time ago and I'm totally at peace with it. That fetus could not survive without the decision of the mother, let her make that decision.Let here deal with her emotions. Let her deal with God. It IS something some women live with for the rest of their lives, but that is her choice.  Finally, I am not a one issue voter. The republicons threaten all of our way of life, the born and unborn.

vcponsardin wrote on November 05, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Profile Picture

Curious.  Had a Republican president killed Osama bin Laden, helped overthrow Muammar Qaddafi, and brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to over 13000, he'd be hailed as the greatest president ever!  Instead, the News-Gazette endorses Romney...  Thank goodness I no longer subscribe.  While it is already an utterly irrelevant publication, I still wonder how long the N-G will struggle on before it goes completely out of business?

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

Re: Alexander (this reply feature bugged out when I posted)

You mean how Republicans donate the most money to charity by a large margin? Their charitable organizations offer a lot of support for people in need (ie, the baby after it is born). Republicans just want to do it through charity, not have their tax money used inefficiently.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79888.html

After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama.

Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice.

Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.

Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: "Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020471290457809267046914031...

Sid Saltfork wrote on November 06, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Acl;  You can "appease the demands of the public sector unions" by paying the overdue employer required contribution money into their members pension systems.  Both political parties were in power when the employer pension payments were skipped.  It is not a Democrat, or Republican failure.  It is a con game ran by both parties in Illinois.  Your solution to the financial problem is to write off the debt owed.  Yeah, solve the problem by stealing if you can.

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

Acl -- I just noticed your reply. Thank you for a thought provoking response. 

Even if I grant you that Republicans donate more on average than Democrats, I would argue that the huge infrastructure development is only possible through taxes not charity, by orders of magnitude. Indeed states like California (and to a lesser extent Illinois) have enviable public universities that drive R&D and provide the manpower that big companies use. Ever heard of the academic power house U of Mississippi? How about U of Montana?

* If you want to look at a successful high tax nation, go look at Canada.

* I don't even want to get into where exactly Republicans donate their money to; some church to go convert people? 

* Any charity republicans donate gets washed out (by many orders of magnitude) by the military spending that is so important to the GOP perspective.

Anyway, there's no use arguing. Your points are standard ones, and so are mine. You know you're right, I know I am too. Best regards. 

justobserving1 wrote on November 06, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Wait, one idiot speaks for the whole staff at the Gazette. Your job is to report the news, not the world as you see it. Romney is a flip flopper, you left that out. You also left out the fact that his own party had no faith in him either. This isn't Mitts first presidential run, nice try hoping no one would notice. By the way how does one call themselves a newspaper and not acknowledge the other two parties running?The Green Party has Jill Stein and the Libertarians have Gary Johnson. The fact that you all call yourself a newspaper is a joke. Romney and Obama are one in the same, neither of whom deserves a vote or endorsement. Once again Gazette fails. 

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

I voted for Gary Johnson today and I don't blame them for not mentioning Johnson or Stein.  Either will be very lucky to get 1% of the national vote.  Yes, it's disgusting that third parties aren't given the time of day by the media, but the News Gazette failing to mention them is a symptom of that, not a cause.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on November 07, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Profile Picture

So you were the other guy that voted for Gary Johnson. Right on brother.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on November 08, 2012 at 9:11 am
Profile Picture

Man who ran quixotic third party mayor campaign a few years back criticizes third party campaign for being quixotic?

Not trying to be rude...just seems a little contradictory.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on November 09, 2012 at 10:11 am
Profile Picture

There was no sarcasm in my statement.

EL YATIRI wrote on November 09, 2012 at 4:11 am
Profile Picture

I chose to not vote.  In a system where money and allegiance to one of two totally corrupt parties is what matters, voting for a non-viable candidate isn't enough of a protest for me.  The fewer eligible voters participate, the stronger the statement against the status quo.  What if only 10% of the electorate bothered to vote?  I think the sham would finally be exposed.  By voting for Gary Johnson all you did was help increase the voter turnout rate, adding to the illusion that we have a democracy.

serf wrote on November 06, 2012 at 10:11 pm

The News Gazette editorial board:

 

On the wrong side of history.

 

Again

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

Who even wrote this?  There's no author listed.  Garbage like this is what likely keeps many people from paying for subscriptions.

7lw7 wrote on November 09, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Just another stupid thing to point out in this truthiness-based endorsement of R-Money:

N-G: "Once relatively unknown to politics, he skyrocketed from a political nonentity in the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just four short years. In fact, he's been president for almost as long as he was a national figure before being elected president."

Let's just put it another way, shall we? Obama was in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004 (8 years) and the US Senate from 2005-2008 (4 years) before becoming president. So that's 12 years in political office.

And how long was Mitt Romney in politics, you might have asked yourselves if you were using critical thinking skills? His only time in political office was 4 years as governor of Massachusetts. He didn't seek re-election because, oh I don't know, he was more interested in skyrocketing himself to the White House.

This article is a joke.