OMG! The Seattle Times Endorses Obama
Posted by Warren Peterson on October 1, 2012
The Times don’t need no stinkin’ debates to drink the Obama Kool-Aid one more time (they endorsed him in 2008). Here is their ringing endorsement in the Sunday paper: “Bottom line: Obama’s presidency has been disappointing, but he still has promise.” Gag me. Four years after “Hope and Change” failed to deliver we are to believe the next four years will be different?
The Times looked at nine areas in reaching their unbelievable conclusion. So lets put a letter grade on each of them.
Foreign affairs: Count the problems: apology tours, canceling missile defense agreement with Poland, failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, saying Afghanistan is the right war and then telling the enemy when we are leaving, tossing Israel under several busses, virtually claiming to have led Seal Team 6 into Osama bin Laden’s love nest, Iran marches on, Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, cover up of terrorist involvement in Libya murders, leading from behind etc. He should get a failing grade but it’s a tough world out there so give him a D.
Trade: A mixed record at best. Unmentioned are Obama and the Democrats, bowing to union pressure, holding up the Columbia free trade agreement for several years. I’ll be generous and give him a C.
Spending and Debt: A plan for reduction of debt, “Obama hasn’t done it, and it may be his greatest failure.” Agreed, a well deserved F.
The Financial System: Obama did not push “for a separation of investment banking from commercial banking.” He did not break “up the top four or five big banks.” He did not “make complex securities transparent.” Three promises not done, an F.
The Main Street Economy: “Obama’s proposal to raise taxes” shows he is “out of touch” and he “mostly has not delivered” on his promised “active antitrust policy.” Another D.
Media control: Blocking consolidation of the media is a big issue for the locally owned Seattle Times. Obama “has not done it” but he “still could.” Or he could not, a D.
Education: He paid off the teacher unions by canceling the D.C. schools voucher program so no A but a B.
Health care: The Times criticizes Obama for concentrating not on the “economic crisis” but on “a party line vote” passing Obama Care which “has little cost control in it” and “will have to be fixed.” Sorry, but another F.
Partisanship: “Obama promised to bring a less partisan style, but he has been aloof with few friendships across the aisle.” According to the Times, the Republican House shares the blame for the lack of cooperation. They should have asked why Obama didn’t take the most partisan hack in leadership, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), to the woodshed. Give him a weak D.
One B, one C, four Ds and three Fs, on a four point system Obama has a solid 1.0 – a D average. President Obama recently gave himself a grade of “Incomplete.” He’s much closer to the girl in the Peanuts cartoon who always gets a D-.
The last line in the editorial is, “Romney would be too much of a gamble.” I beg to differ. A gamble would be to double down with a sixteen trillion dollar bet on another four years of Obama.