The Conservative LA Times: ‘The only thing he (Romney) really stands for is his own election’

In a flood of new endorsements for Obama, the consensus is that Obama has a vision for this country while Romney stands for nothing except a belief that he should be president.

While we’ve been focused on swing state endorsements, Obama also got an endorsement from the conservative LA Times in which they write that Romney’s ever-changing positions leave the impression that “the only thing he really stands for is his own election.” Additionally the Sante Fe New Mexican wrote passionately about the President’s gutsy leadership in getting Osama and Obama’s slow and steady approach that is focused on the needs of the country, working for the collective good.

The Sante Fe New Mexican endorsed President Obama for a second term, saying his steady leadership stayed focused on the collective good. They note Obama’s gutsy leadership in getting Osama bin Laden:

He inherited an unholy mess — an economy teetering on the edge of a second Great Depression and two foreign wars top the list of disasters. Slowly, steadily and with his eye fixed firmly on the needs of the country, the president has worked hard every day to improve our collective good. It was President Obama who bailed out the auto industry, salvaging 1.1 million jobs and keeping manufacturing alive in this country. It was President Obama who made the gutsy call to invade a compound in Pakistan, tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden. It was President Obama who finally signed comprehensive health reform so that no American has to fear bankruptcy because of a medical catastrophe. More work remains for a second term…

So much accomplished in four years. So much remaining to be done.

The conservative LA Times (yes, Virginia, conservatives do have a voice in Los Angeles) that Murdoch is eyeing up to buy in order to spread his filthy propaganda endorsed Obama, saying Romney is flat out wrong on the issues and his willingness to pander raise questions about who he is.

Republicans have sought to make the presidential election an up-or-down vote on Obama, hoping that voters will hold him accountable for the country’s stubbornly high unemployment and sluggish economy. But this election isn’t a referendum on one candidate, it’s a choice between two. And unfortunately for the GOP, its candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has demonstrated clearly that he’s the wrong choice. He’s wrong on the issues, from immigration to tax policy to the use of American power to gay rights and beyond. And his shifting positions and willingness to pander have raised questions about who he is and what he stands for.

They call Romney out for not standing for anything other than his own reelection:

The most troubling aspect of Romney’s candidacy is that we still don’t know what his principles are. Is he the relatively moderate Republican who was governor of Massachusetts, the “severely conservative” one on display in the GOP primaries or the more reasonable-sounding fellow who reappeared at the presidential debates? His modulating positions on his own tax plan, healthcare reform, financial regulation, Medicare, immigration and the national safety net add to the impression that the only thing he really stands for is his own election.

Repeatedly, the editorials endorsing Obama call Mitt Romney out for standing for nothing but his own election. He is a man who has shown himself to have no core convictions other than a belief that he is entitled to the White House. On the other hand, we have President Obama who is praised for his guiding principles of working for the common good of all Americans, his steady hand on a teetering economy, and his diplomatic finesse in foreign relations.

The Republicans put up a candidate who quite simply has offered the American people nothing but his belief in his entitlement to the White House.

Comments are closed.