BAM! The Post has made its endorsement! It is only a day or so before that ripples through the country and upends the playing field and hands the election to Obama, who invites the editorial department to a private dinner at the White House, during which PostScript will have a little too much to drink and blurt something inappropriate, but will be forgiven because she is feisty and adorable. It will be just like when plucky orphan Annie visited FDR and singlesongedly ended the Great Depression.
Okay, the truth is, newspaper endorsements — even those of august newspapers like this one — haven’t actually rippled through the electorate and decided things since roughly the second Grover Cleveland administration (The Post giving out free samples of Benjy Harrison cologne might have been a bad idea.) But they do seem to rile up commenters, which, after all, is what we care about here. Mostly we’re hearing not from undecideds who are grateful to us for helping them make up their minds, but from made-up minds telling us how, in case it was not The Post’s endorsement, the minds were upmade.
How and why have people made their decisions? Commenters posted more than 5,000 responses under the editorial itself, in a chat with Editorial Board Honcho Fred Hiatt, and over in “Make Your Case.” Case it out:
Quaesitum argues that the editorial board’s endorsement ruins it for the rest of us, who don’t need help:
In my opinion, the news media should never endorse a candidate for office. I read the news because I want to get the facts straight in order to make my own voting decision. But once the editorial board of a news outlet takes a partisan position of endorsing a candidate, their commitment to reporting the facts comes into question. Don’t you believe it for a minute that most news outlets, including the WaPo, can keep its opinions from affecting — and infecting — its reporting of the facts. And why should we care anyway if the editorial board of the WaPo or any other paper endorses a particular candidate, unless we cannot make up our own minds?
cjd260 doesn’t buy The Post’s point that Romney is all that mysterious:
A mostly solid [piece] but for one point: anyone with half a brain knows exactly what Mitt Romney would do in office. He’d cut taxes across the board (as promised), shovel more money at the Pentagon (as promised), close some meaningless, politically indefensible loopholes (second home mortgage interest, etc.) as window dressing, and eviscerate Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, and funding for PBS, the EPA and the NEA, while mouthing platitudes about “tough choices” and “shared sacrifice.” Then, when the deficit explodes, he’d blame unions, Democrats, the poor, immigrants, gays and lesbians and the 2003 Detroit Tigers, then use it as an excuse to cut even more funding from those who need it most.
wolfeja thanks The Post for being so...unbiased! We’re blushing:
This is the first article I’ve seen that gives a balanced review (pluses and minuses) of Obama’s first term. Most deny one side of the ledger or the other. I don’t think Obama has been a great president. But, he’s a helluva lot better than his opponent.
kchses1 agrees that Obama has had an uphill battle, but says it’ll be the same one for the next four years, so why would he get better results in the future?:
Pres. Obama hasn’t gotten the job done. I think if Clinton, Reagan, Cuomo or Christie (who also have had massively dysfunctional legislatures to deal with) were in the WH they would have found a way to get around it. I may detest the right wing media that has striven from before he was elected to paint some fantastic otherworldly picture of Pres Obama but in the end none of that matters. I’m not voting for the lobotomized right wing media. Romney won’t be giving them the keys to the WH.
boosterprez seconds that:
The House will stay Republican, and the Senate will likely stay Democrat. President Obama, in the last four years, has already shown his inability — and, quite frankly, his unwillingness — to work with this configuration. So how on earth does anyone REALLY expect him to get anything done the next four years?
Senjata says that, even if he denies it now, Romney was right four years ago about letting Detroit fail — and that’s a big enough issue to decide his or her vote:
The debate between Obama and Romney boils down to the position on one thing, and it’s not abortion, not tax rates, and not health care. It’s the buyout of General Motors. I’d ask anyone who is on the fence to weigh the buyout of GM. If you think the buyout of GM was good thing, vote for Obama. If not, vote for Romney. No other single issue describes what the two candidates believe the role of the government is as much as this.
Romney, and Republicans at large believe the people who saved GM are the people who purchase the cars it makes, not a government that made GM a state-owned company and believes that it knows better than the market which cars to produce. Romney believes that, if GM went through chapter 11 bankruptcy, it would have become a more efficient company than it is now, would be a better competitor in the marketplace, would have been better for the health of the company in the long run, wouldn’t have cost the taxpayer 10s of billions of dollars, and wouldn’t have set an unheard of precedent in government intervention anathema to our ideals of free market enterprise.
hipshot actually does rely on good, old-fashioned endorsements! It’s sweet!
Check out wikipedia. Obama has four times as many endorsements from porn stars as does Romney.
Just in case President-elect Mitt Romney is reading this from the future, and is thinking about inviting The Post to the White House to show no hard feelings, PostScript casually mentions she can reenact several alternate scenes from Annie as needed, including “You’re Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile.”