commentaries

To criticize Obama for not successfully working with a divided Congress is ridiculous. Numerous members of the the Republican Caucus (both in the House and Senate) openly stated a mission to limit Obama to a single term and that would be their driving force in policy. The debt crisis was due to such partisanship. And regarding the Democratic majority during the first two years of his term ignores the filibustering ways of the Senate Republicans - in threat and practice.

From the article: "We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years." Yet you do have more confidence that Romney will manage the economy and the budget more successfully when he and his chosen running mate advocate for a return to the very Borrow-and-Spend-Trickle-Down-Less-Regulation-Supply-Side policies which led to the mortgage/credit crisis, job losses, greater income/wealth gap, and more people in poverty??? You have confidence in the duo which salivates over the prospect of partially privatizing Social Security and voucherizing education and Medicare? You have confidence that Mitt Romney--who favors overturning Roe vs Wade--will nominate non-activist Justices? You have confidence in Romney-Ryan's tax cutting/cut-cut-cut fiscal policies? You have confidence that repealing ACA, defunding Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, eliminating the Amtrak subsidy and the subsidies for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities will offset 20% across-the-board tax cuts and a HUGE increase in defense spending?

Regarding Romney's 5-Point Plan: (1) "Achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020." Really???

(2) "Trade that works for America." Specifically, "level the playing field for American businesses." How does Mitt propose to drive wages for American workers as low as wages in China, India, et al.? Does Mitt favor any environmental regulations? What's the market he sees for American goods and services--once China's factories and construction businesses have purchased our high-end equipment and technology, what's to keep China from manufacturing their own? Does Mitt really think Chinese workers (who make far, far less than their American counterparts) will demand the consumer goods American unemployed and underemployed American workers can no longer afford?Do Sentinel editors actually think the godfather of off-shoring will do a better job of confronting China for cheating on trade and stealing American jobs than President Obama has done???

(3) "Provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs." Platitudes do not reform education or make post-secondary education affordable. Voucherizing public education will simply Balkanize it. Romney's running mate voted repeatedly against increasing Pell Grants and favors vouchers and for-profit colleges.

(4) "Cut the deficit." Romney's running mate is a self-proclaimed deficit hawk who voted for every Bush 43 deficit policy and debt ceiling hike and was "born again" on January 20, 2009. Even he, the "Numbers Guy" can't predict when the Romney-Ryan budget will balance. Rand Paul, on the other hand, says Ryan's deficit-increasing, programs-for-the-poor-cutting, high-income/wealth-protecting budget wouldn't balance the budget for 28 years.

(5) "Champion small business." I can't find Romney's definition of "small business," so I'll withhold comment--except to note that Romney described his job at Bain as "harvesting companies at a profit."

From the article: "The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years." Well then, Orlando Sentinel editors, I suggest that it's far more productive to endorse candidates for Congress who will do the job voters hire them to do--to tax and spend in the interest of providing for the common good of all the American people--than it is to abandon the President who staved off Great Depression II.

This is a half-baked endorsement that overlooks key facts and criticizes the President for things he can't really control. Also, it ignores the fact that Romney actually has no workable plan to make things any better, and a lot of bad ideas (backing a war with Iran, for example) that could make things much worse. But I am not surprised that the Orlando Sentinel reached this conclusion. It backed George Bush in 2000 and has a history of making bad decisions.

I commend the reasoned explanation by the Orlando Sentinals editorial staff on why they're endorsing Romney after voting for Obama. The best articulation I've read on why Romney will be getting my vote as well.

Remember that Obama had both houses of Congress for 2 years and did nothing to improve our fiscal condition. He used the extra power to move America big steps into socialism - first by passing Obamacare which gives government control to over 1/6 of our entire economy and second to pass Stimulus which redistributed $800 billion of wealth. These are both socialist principles and goals. Obama ignores the most predictable economic crisis in our history. Is it because he has no budget, no plans and no ideas? Or is it because he wants America to go over the fiscal cliff?

The "Obama is a socialist" garbage is traced back to Republican talking points. Providing health care to EVERYONE in the world's richest nation is not Socialist so much as humanist. It does NOT take away health care opportunities from the wealthy. If it is a choice between a Socialist Obama and a constructivist Ayn Rand-inspired Romney/Ryan, I'll go with Marx every day. With Obama, we know where he stands - with R&R, there is NO detail. Their 5-Point Economic Plan would be an academic failure with no substance.

As Romney has kept much of the details of his financial plan ridiculously vague, I certainly wish the editorialist writing for the Sentinel would explain how exactly Romney - who hasn't bothered to explain much at all - is going to to do a better job managing the economy when, in effect, the broad strokes of Romney's economic plan amounts to a redux of Bush administration policies, namely 1) promises of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest, 2) an increase in defense spending and 3) God help us, undoing the regulatory framework put in place after the financial industry went off the rails in 2007 and nearly took the country -and the rest of the globe - down with it. And the pièce de résistance: Romney's assurance, given all this, he'll not increase the deficit. I think we all know snake oil when we hear it, or has has the Orlando Sentinel suddenly gone deaf to the hissing of snakes?

Of course every argument in this "editorial" falls apart when you accept the reality that Republicans have actively obstructed EVERYTHING this administration has tried to do. But, fascist never let true facts get in the way of good rhetoric and blame.