Des Moines Register has something to say

[samintx]

BATTLEGROUND STATESKEY ISSUES

Des Moines Register endorses Romney, ending Democratic streak

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...7086.story

[Acer]

Which Romney did they endorse? Severely Conservative Primary Romney, Severely Moderate Nominee Romney, or the Severely Not Obama Romney?

[Pam]

You should have linked to the Register itself.

"Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."

In other words, the Tea Party folks won't compromise at all with Obama but might with Romney. Or Romney rolls over to the Tea Party.

[Acer]

Any progress is better than no progress, even if the progress in reverse.

That said, Des Moines Register had better start endorsing some Senate candidates somewhere, because without that Romney is going to do no better than Obama by the standard the Register is setting.

[deckeda]

Which Romney did they endorse?

The last two.

Here's the full text, from the actual source! http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article...?Frontpage

Without picking every nit, the Register's tone suggests that because the economy hasn't rebounded as fast as "it should" we should give Romney "a chance." That's about as strongly as they state it. Golly!

Romney is a lukewarm beer you hope will taste better than it does because you think having a beer right now is a good idea. It looks like it should taste good, so just give it a try.

The Register places genuine faith in the notion that Romney can duplicate his Governorship success of working in a Democratically-controlled arena that doesn't exist at the Federal level. It's irrelevant now because those conditions don't exist now.

The main problem with the Register's "aw, let's just give him a try!" dreaming is that it's not truly seeking change, it's that they're bored with Obama. Either that or they somehow forgot just how fscked the nation's economy was under Bush. Probably both, it seems.

Prior to his first term, GWB promised nothing but feel-good bipartisanship and did a fantastic job campaigning on being Everyman. But by January when he began filling his Cabinet it was clear the jig was up and that moderates had been taken for a ride. Romney has that same appeal going for him --- zero relevant track record nor compunction to be moderate, as evidenced by surrounding himself with the set sorts of cronies.

[deckeda]

One more thing that really stuck out about what the Register said.

All those jobs lost? MANY ARE NEVER GOING TO COME BACK. Not under any President. New job creation comes about as industry discovers new needs, not old needs.

Companies are not waiting around for "confidence" (I almost puked when I read that) to bolster so that they can ring up those who were laid off.

"Here's your desk, just as you left it a few years ago! C'mon back!" That fantasy won't f-ing happen, kids.

[mrbigstuff]

deckeda wrote:
One more thing that really stuck out about what the Register said.

All those jobs lost? MANY ARE NEVER GOING TO COME BACK. Not under any President. New job creation comes about as industry discovers new needs, not old needs.

Companies are not waiting around for "confidence" (I almost puked when I read that) to bolster so that they can ring up those who were laid off.

"Here's your desk, just as you left it a few years ago! C'mon back!" That fantasy won't f-ing happen, kids.

+1. and at least Obama has said that some of those lost jobs are not coming back.

[rankandfile]

Based on the excerpts, I don't need to read it. Obama will still take Iowa.

The Register apparently (?) is not aware or is willing to cave to the do-nothing Republican-controlled House and the record-filibustering Republican minority in the Senate,...

If any of you have not looked at the many "jobs" bills that the House Republicans passed, you should. In almost every case, each bill is a special interest tax-cut measure with "Job(s)" in the title. None of them invest in actual job-creation. None.

What else can you expect from people who started out by reading the "convenient" parts of the Constitution and who wasted time voting 33 times to repeal the ACA.

[deckeda]

mrbigstuff wrote:
+1. and at least Obama has said that some of those lost jobs are not coming back.

Economists have said it too. The inherent nature of some businesses have changed. So the jobs don't exist and the laid off can't simply go into some other line of work like flipping a switch.

Corporate tax cuts can work when the corporations want to hire people but need a push. They do nothing for job creation when corporations aren't looking to hire because the business no longer requires it. Why it that fundamental construct so insanely lost on conservatives? Basic supply and demand will not tolerate much outside (artificial) futzing around with.

[Lemon Drop]

The Register has picked the loser more often than the winner, let's hope their trend holds.