But today, rather than articulate a compelling vision for growth, the president falls back on the tired talking point of increasing taxes for the wealthy. Americans want our tax code to be fair — and fixed; there’s no question about that. But it’s hard to see how raising taxes is going to kickstart jobs in the private sector.
The president had enormous opportunity when he took office, with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. But he failed to focus on Job One: Jobs.
So while we endorsed Obama in 2008, we recommend voters choose Republican Mitt Romney on Nov. 6.
Bit by bit, putting it together
Piece by piece, only way to make a work of art
Every moment makes a contribution
Every little detail plays a parts
Having just a vision's no solution
Everything depends on execution
Putting it together, that's what counts!
(two extra points if you can tell me where those lyrics come from... no cheating... no googling)
Too bad that:
Arizona Daily Star
Washington Post
Denver Post
LA Times
New York Times
Tampa Bay Times
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Charlotte (NC) Observer
Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times
Akron Beacon-Journal
Santa Fe New Mexican
Even the Utah "Salt Lake City Tribune" couldn't stomach RMoney...
Yeah...I'm glad RMoney was able to get the Sun-Sentinel... He won't look quite so stupid....
Arizona Republic
Philadelphia Enquirer
Cleveland (Ohio) Plain Dealer
Newark Star Ledger
Seattle Times
Sacramento Bee
San Antonio Express News
Tacoma News Tribune
The only endorsement that matters is that of the electorate... all news media is pretty much worthless at this point and "journalists" are all partsan hacks with very few useful skills.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I discount generalized statements that include references to "all" when talking about anything. It's hyperbole. The only vote that counts is actually the electoral college, the way our forefathers set up our system of government.
It was set up that way to keep the big states from dictating to the smaller states. Not sure if is really a valid method. It means that if you live in a state such as California, your vote counts less than if you live in a small state. 685307 votes to one electoral vote in CA, 568532.8 votes to one electoral vote in CO and 189386 per electoral vote in WY. That's a pretty big difference.
It's set up exactly the same way congressional representatives are allocated to each state. So, if it's not a valid method, then the House of Representatives is not valid.
Miami Herald endorses Obama.
"OUR OPINION: Romney’s contradictory positions raise questions about his intentions"
Do I disagree with the Constitution and our Founding Fathers on this issue? No.
Once you get rid of the Electoral College, the election will be conducted in New York and San Francisco.
But, if we didn't have the Electoral College, the U.S. would have had four more Democrat presidents. History shows that candidates have won the presidency but not the popular vote four times, and in each case it was the Democrat who got the most votes but lost the presidency: 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
How come you're not complaining the U.S. Senate is not fair? Each state gets two senators, regardless of population. Under your interpretation, that's not fair either.
