Did Mitt Romney Write His Columbus Dispatch Endorsement?

Posted on by

image of The Columbus Dispatch sign downtownWow! The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch hit all the GOP talking points in their recent editorial endorsing Mitt Romney for President. What kind of shocked me was the inclusion the subtly racist one that says ‘We gave the guy a chance so it is okay to vote him out of office’ that comes from the ad the Republican National Committee is running on the local Dispatch owned TV station now. I wonder if the Romney campaign and/or the RNC wrote the editorial because rational people know all the talking points have been rebutted multiple times.

The editorial starts out as you would expect from a Republican biased owner and publisher:

After nearly four years of economic stagnation, massive unemployment, record-setting debt and government intrusions into the economy that have paralyzed the private sector, the United States needs a new direction. For this reason, The Dispatch urges voters to choose Republican Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election.

and then there was this:

Four years later, the nation is in the grip of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

And:

Obama has failed. That is why Mitt Romney is the preferred choice for president. Romney’s adult life has been spent turning around troubled private and public institutions. These turnarounds include scores of companies acquired and restructured by Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded in 1984. Not all were successes, but that is because to a significant degree, many of the companies Bain took on were high-risk. In 1999, he was asked to take over the scandal-plagued and fiscally mismanaged 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. He quickly streamlined its management, fixed its finances and guaranteed its security, turning it into a success. As governor of Massachusetts, he made tough decisions to lead the state out of a budget deficit, and he did so in a state dominated by Democrats.

And finally:

In 2008, Americans made a leap of faith when they elevated the inexperienced Obama to the White House. That faith was not rewarded. This time, voters should place their hopes for change in experience, by electing Romney.

For president

What’s missing and is missing from the GOP, in general, is acknowledgement that the GOP played a major part in putting the nation “in the grip of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.” Had the GOP actually worked with Obama instead of saying NO! at every turn then the economy might be better as seen by the success of the small stimulus that Democrats were able to get passed in the very short time they had control of both the House and Senate. I guess 44 straight months of job growth is un-American to the GOP.

As economist Paul Krugman writes:

Over the past few months advisers to the Romney campaign have mounted a furious assault on the notion that financial-crisis recessions are different. For example, in July former Senator Phil Gramm and Columbia’s R. Glenn Hubbard published an op-ed article claiming that we should be having a recovery comparable to the bounceback from the 1981-2 recession, while a white paper from Romney advisers argues that the only thing preventing a rip-roaring boom is the uncertainty created by President Obama.

Obviously, Republicans like claiming that it’s all Mr. Obama’s fault, and that electing Mr. Romney would magically make everything better. But nobody should believe them.

For one thing, these people have a track record: back in 2008, when serious students of history were already predicting a prolonged slump, Mr. Gramm was dismissing America as a “nation of whiners” experiencing a mere “mental recession.” For another, if Mr. Obama is the problem, why is the United States actually doing better than most other advanced countries?

The main point, however, is that the Romney team is willfully, nakedly, distorting the record, leading Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff — who aren’t affiliated with either campaign — to protest against “gross misinterpretations of the facts.” And this should worry you.

The Secret of Our Non-Success

The Dispatch and the Romney campaign want to go back to the failed policies of the Bush administration that CAUSED the financial meltdown in the first place. Why would we want to do that?

The Dispatch also didn’t give credit to the president for his success in spite of the economic funk the GOP refuses to help solve. The President passed health care reform, enabled fair pay for women, ended the war in Iraq against the wishes of the Republicans, passed Wall Street reform, turned around the U.S. Auto industry, reversed Bush torture policies, increased support for veterans, improved the food safety system, gave the FDA power to regulate tobacco, and invested heavily in renewable technology among many many other accomplishment.

Many of these successes have been specifically opposed by Romney and the GOP.

Why does the GOP and the Dispatch hate success?

The people of Massachusetts, who know the kind of “leader” Romney is don’t want him elected as President. The idea that Romney was able to work with the Democrats in Massachusetts is also false.

This just shows how out of touch and biased the Wolf family (who own the Dispatch and personally approve endorsements) are. Back in 2004 when George W. Bush was running for a 2nd term here is what the Dispatch wrote in endorsing him:

Like millions of American voters, The Dispatch is less than enthused about the choices in next week’s presidential election. Neither President Bush nor Sen. John Kerry has built a record that leads to a clear-cut decision.

Since President Bush took office, this newspaper repeatedly has criticized his administration’s borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, which have resulted in massive deficits that weaken America. The Dispatch also strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, contending the case had not been made that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or posed an imminent threat to this nation.

Although the president, unfortunately, seems incapable of admitting obvious error, Kerry has not provided a vision of what he would do differently in Iraq. He agrees the United States must be successful in pacifying Iraq. He claims he could be more successful in getting other nations to help shoulder the burden, but that is not realistic.

During the presidential campaign, Kerry has revised his stance on Iraq almost as frequently as there have been shifts in opinion polls. He appears to lack solid convictions on how to proceed.

Confronted with these disappointments and this choice, The Dispatch believes a second-term George W. Bush would stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead.

After all, four years ago, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Perhaps more than any other, he should make good on that promise.

Despite missteps, Bush is better able to steer nation through difficulties ahead (10/23/2004)

What is ironic is the part describing John Kerry as a flip-flopper since Mitt Romney has the same problem this election.

So if the Dispatch could hold its nose and want to give Bush another term to improve why then do they ignore the pile of evidence to do the same for President Obama?

Oh that’s right – It’s OK If You’re A Republican.


Comments for this post are closed. If you wish to send a note to the editor, visit our contact form

  • Marlowe53

    I believe the Dispatch has not endorsed a Democrat for president in eighty years or so.