Denver Post Endorses Obama

[one...two...tree 2,762]

With the nation mired in two wars and amid an economic meltdown, we endorsed a largely untested young senator from Illinois for president in 2008.

Four years later, the Iraq war is over, the war in Afghanistan has a conclusion in sight, and the economy has made demonstrable — though hardly remarkable — progress.

As President Barack Obama campaigns for re-election, it would be a stretch to say we are bullish on the entirety of his first term. There have been notable accomplishments: rescuing the nation's auto industry, passing comprehensive (though contentious) health-care reform, and delivering justice to Osama bin Laden. But those accomplishments are juxtaposed against a sluggish economy and less impressive performances in tackling the federal debt and deficits, reducing unemployment and bolstering the housing market.

A largely intransigent Republican Party shares in the blame, however, particularly because of unwillingness to cede any ground to Obama in the last two years on policies — such as the president's American Jobs Act — that attempt to bolster the economy.

And though there is much in Mitt Romney's résumé to suggest he is a capable problem-solver, the Republican nominee has not presented himself as a leader who will bring his party closer to the center at a time when that is what this country needs.

His comments on the 47 percent of Americans who refuse to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" were a telling insight into his views and a low point of the campaign.

Obama, on the other hand, has shown throughout his term that he is a steady leader who keeps the interests of a broad array of Americans in mind.

We urge Coloradans to re-elect him to a second term.

Regardless of the outcome on Nov. 6, America is once again confronted with a daunting economic picture that requires bold action even before the next president takes the oath of office.

This time, politicians cannot blame Wall Street for our plight. Instead, both parties are guilty of pushing our country too close to the so-called fiscal cliff while hoping voters would endorse their view of government come Election Day.

Romney's approach is one of tax cuts for all, drastic Medicare reform, increased defense spending, and what would be catastrophic cuts to other discretionary programs. In the Republican primary, he said he couldn't support a plan that included even $10 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue. To expect the country to balance its budget without additional revenue, in our view, is nothing short of fantasy.

The president's most recent plan for budget-cutting is closer to being the right recipe in that it includes a mix of revenue increasesandspending cuts. That said, Obama's plan is overly reliant upon the windfall from letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire while counting "savings" from fighting wars that he repeatedly reminds us were put on the credit card.

Avoiding a severe recession

Before the start of the new year, the president and Congress must craft a budget plan that addresses the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts and $109 billion in mandatory cuts to defense and discretionary spending. Failure to do so promises to drag a fragile economy back into a severe recession.

It is past time for lawmakers from both sides to agree to a sizeable plan of spending cuts, tax revenue increases and — perhaps most important — longer-term entitlement reforms. Doing so would send a signal to the markets, to businesses and to other countries that we are responsible enough to set the table for sustained economic growth in the decades to come.

A bipartisan group is pushing the idea of such a "grand bargain" in the Senate, which we support. The nation needs a president who can lead that charge to push that deal across the finish line, and we believe Obama is committed to seeing it done.

The president was willing to concede on the issue of entitlements in a deal reached with House Speaker John Boehner in 2011. But Boehner couldn't sell their agreement to Tea Party conservatives in the House. We expect Obama will stand up to liberals in his party to compromise on the sacred cow of entitlement reform as part of a larger budget deal shortly after Election Day.

There is less reason to believe that Romney would attempt to — or even could — manage a similar feat in challenging the Tea Party wing of his party on tax revenues.

The Obama administration can be fairly criticized for leaning too heavily on regulations that hamper business, but on balance we have seen enough to believe the president will pursue policies — and compromise, when necessary — that protect the vulnerable, invest in the middle class, and deliver an economy that drives us to a better future.

Obama has moved the country in the right direction on school reform. On higher education, he has taken steps to address affordability through increasing Pell Grants and streamlining the student-loan process. His executive order that allows qualified illegal immigrants brought here as children a chance to pursue college degrees is a positive step — though much remains to be done on immigration reform.

As commander in chief, he has demonstrated himself capable in a tough situation. He eliminated the military's discriminatory "don't ask don't tell" policy, limited this country's involvement in Libya while still playing a role in the ouster of Moammar Khadafy, and hasn't allowed the U.S. to be drawn into the Syrian civil war. He has remained a friend to Israel, but isn't engaging in war talk over the Iranian nuclear issue. Moving forward, the administration owes the American public a thorough explanation of the troubling events surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi last month.

We know that many have a different view, and point to Romney's record in Massachusetts as ample reason for his election. Unfortunately, he never seriously campaigned as a centrist alternative to Obama.

From running to the far right on immigration and women's health in the primary and then saddling his campaign with Rep. Paul Ryan's extreme and unrealistic budget, the Romney of this election cycle is not the man elected in Massachusetts.

Instead, we must judge him on the menu of options he has repeatedly put forward during this campaign. On policies ranging from tax reform to immigration, from health care to higher education, none of Romney's numbers add up. Moreover, he has been unwilling or unable to outline for voters specifics that demonstrate his math works — probably because it doesn't.

Romney has said he will repeal Obamacare, yet insists he can keep its most popular provisions without fully explaining how he would pay for it.

He's calling for 20 percent tax rate cuts across the board. Independent analysts say the government can't come close to making up for that lost revenue without closing popular deductions like those for home-mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Romney's explanations for how he would do that don't wash.

And his pledge to create 12 million jobs in four years sounds good, but Moody's Analytics has predicted that type of job growthregardlessof who is elected.

Drill-at-all-costs wrong

Romney notes correctly that North America is poised to become an energy exporter. But the drill-at-all-costs mantra he is pushing runs counter to the predominant view in Colorado, which is one that balances energy and environment — particularly when it comes to public land. And, unlike the Republican nominee, we believe our nation's energy portfolio must include government investment in renewable sources such as wind and solar — both of which can become sources of more power and more jobs in the future.

Republicans are right to remind voters that one month after taking office, President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. But the country's economic malaise turned out to be much deeper than was known at the time. As recently pointed out by Politico, Obama's pledge came when it was estimated that the economy shrank at a rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. In August 2009, the rate was readjusted to a negative 8.9 percent — the worst single-quarter decline in half a century.

With unemployment dropping below 8 percent and following 30 months of private-sector job growth, now is the time for him to make good on that promise of deficit reduction.

This is an election that begs the candidates to demonstrate what they plan to do moving forward. Neither has done enough to lead us to think voters on Nov. 6 aren't, to a certain degree, being asked to make a leap of faith. But Obama's record of accomplishment under trying circumstances and his blueprint for a second term make him the best pick to move the nation forward.

Read more:Endorsement: Barack Obama for president - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21804862/editorial-barack-obama-president#ixzz29wmhUVk5

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Edited October 21, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

the war in Afghanistan has a conclusion in sight,

[Danno 1,228]

Well finally!

Good to see at least one news paper still values party loyalty.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Good to see those cut/paste/skills are working overtime today.. Well since the party has moved here I'll cut and paste my own last response to the previous similar story:

Having a paper or prominent person that supported you four years ago continue to support you is not a slap in the face.. What is news worthy is having a prominent paper/person that supported the other side four years ago switch. Did they support the republican candidate four years ago and now endorse Obama? That is a slap in the face.. Did they endorse Obama fours years ago and now endorse Romney? That is a slap in the face.

I can think of two that I read about last week..

The Orlando Sentinel, Florida's largest paper, endorsed Obama in 2008 and has decided to endorse Romney for 2012. Orlando Endorsement

Lee Iaccoca who backed Obama in 2008 has endorsed Romney in 2012. Lee Iaccoca endorsement

Also on your previous post.. The one with the headline "Largest Mormon Newspaper endorses Obama" - The Salt lake tribune is not a "Mormon" newspaper - that would be its competition "Deseret news". The Salt Lake Tribune is in fact owned by MediaNews Corp wish is based in Denver which also *surprise* owns the Denver post.

Tell me - you seem to think everything is a conspiracy.. Do you see any here by chance?