posted November 04, 2012 02:40 PM            

–The Des Moines Register

“It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.”

–The Orlando Sentinel

“More pointedly, we are disappointed in the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.”

“The president has shown little understanding of how his failures are affecting the nation, and he hasn’t offered any tangible proposals to change course.”

posted November 04, 2012 02:47 PM            

–Florida Today

“Nationally, the one thing that is needed above anything else is job creation. Yet, the president’s economic proposal is to raise taxes on the job-creating class. Why ever would you raise taxes on anyone when real unemployment is around 15 percent? That defies all economic theories. Let’s face it: Romney is more of a businessman than a politician. You can resent his wealth all you want, but he has a proven record as a turnaround artist.”

–The Daily Tribune, Royal Oak, MI

“As Texans, it is a particular vexation that this president’s attitude toward the interests of our state has occasionally bordered on contempt, particularly in decisions relating to the NASA budget and the energy sector.”

–Houston Chronicle

“President Obama’s steps to get spending under control and reduce the debt are too tentative, and again hark back to his inability to possess the leadership to break the partisan gridlock in Congress.”

–The Tennessean

posted November 04, 2012 02:55 PM            

–Los Angeles Daily News

“Romney is an agent of change whose primary campaign thrust has been the economy and his plans and qualifications to improve it.”

–Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“But today, rather than articulate a compelling vision for growth, the president falls back on the tired talking point of increasing taxes for the wealthy.”

– Sun Sentinel Fort Lauderdale, FL

“The president laments congressional gridlock that fomented under the inflammatory leadership of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The president’s deference to their reckless rhetoric further deepened congressional divide.”

–Quad-City Times

posted November 04, 2012 03:02 PM            

–Long Beach Press-Telegram

“Four years ago, we recommended Barack Obama be elected. He offered himself as someone who could bridge the wide chasm between Democrats and Republicans. However, after four years, the situation has worsened.”

–Pensacola News Journal

“Mr. Obama may have great ideas, but if he can’t get them through Congress — and there’s no reason to think anything on that account will change after Nov. 6 — they are worthless.”

–The Reporter

“Some of the warnings about Obama’s lack of legislative and leadership skills have come true over the past four years. It is not worth risking the state of our economy for the next four years to see whether his learning curve really is behind him.”

–Naples Daily News

posted November 04, 2012 03:09 PM            

–The New York Observer

“Voters may well wonder if Obama even knows what it means to get spending under control.”

– Billings Gazette

“Instead of following through on his hope-and-change message, Obama keeps telling us the limits of hope and change.”

–Pasadena Star-News

“In 2008, an unproven Obama promised things would turn out differently with him in charge. “Change we can believe in” is how he put it. Four years later we realize it was all made up.”

–Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise

posted November 04, 2012 03:16 PM            

–Cape Cod Times

“Good intentions, repeated promises and lofty rhetoric are no substitute for sound economics and a foreign policy grounded in realism and strength.”

“Obama spent a year to win razor-thin passage of a divisive law that has spawned fights over expensive mandates, new taxes and infringement of religious liberties.”

–Worcester Telegram & Gazette

“It is true that in 2008 we endorsed the change promised by Obama, but the reality today is – four years later – we have little confidence Obama will be more successful managing the economy and the budget going forward. Indeed, we feel change is needed again. And we believe Romney fills that ticket.”

–The Shreveport Times

“Sure, funding for public broadcasting is an insignificant part of the budget, but if Obama isn’t even willing to cut one one-hundreth of 1 percent of federal spending for something that is non-vital to America, then the president is not serious about reducing spending at all.

If Obama is not serious about that, he is the wrong person for the job.”

–The Joplin Globe

posted November 04, 2012 03:24 PM            

– Journal And Courier, Lafayette,IN

“This administration from day one has waged a deplorable crusade to kill coal mining jobs, and to close coal-fired power plants, through a politically motivated Environmental Protection Agency.”

–Bluefield Daily Telegraph

“Obama’s Term In The White House Has Been Quite Possibly The Most Disappointing Presidency In The History Of The United States.”

–Casper Star-Tribune

“President Obama has strong support among women and ethnic minorities, but his avowed goal of bringing together all Americans remains only a faint dream. After four years, he has run out of time.”

–The Vancouver Columbian

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/change-see-the-28-large-newspapers-that-endorsed-obama-last-election-and-are-now-endorsing-romney/

posted November 05, 2012 11:34 AM            

The common notion that the liberal press tends to favor Democratic candidates is not the case.

6:17PM EST November 4. 2012 - Do Democratic or Republican presidential candidates get more newspaper endorsements? If you guessed Democrats, it's understandable why. Some newspapers have recently published incorrect statements.

Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake, for example, observed : "The fact that President Obama is likely to win more newspaper endorsements isn't surprising. Editorial boards tend to endorse more Democrats than Republicans, and they definitely did that in 2008." The Charlotte Observer's editorial page editor, Taylor Batten, recently left the same impression.

In offering these assertions, some in the news media reinforce an erroneous stereotype about newspaper bias.

Industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher has followed the endorsements of U.S. newspapers for the past 80 years. In 16 of the last 20 presidential elections, dating from 1932, Republicans have won more endorsements from America's daily newspapers than Democrats have.

Now, Blake was correct that 2008 was a Democratic year. Barack Obama was endorsed by about 64% of daily newspapers in his race against John McCain. In fact, Obama was the most endorsed Democrat in recorded history. But Obama was the rare exception that proves the rule. Other than Lyndon Johnson after the Kennedy assassination, Bill Clinton during his initial presidential campaign and John Kerry in challenging George W. Bush in 2004, Democrats have lost the endorsement race.

Furthermore, the common notion that winning the endorsement battle determines the outcome of the election is wrong. Despite losing the endorsement race in 1960, John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon. Despite having fewer endorsements in 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected. Despite losing the endorsement race in 1996, Clinton was re-elected with less newspaper support.

As an incumbent, Obama is unlikely to retain the level of support he received in 2008. Most incumbents lose some of their initial supporters. But they all hope to retain "enough" supporters to win re-election.

Since 1932, E&P has recorded almost 18,000 endorsements by more than 2,600 newspapers nationally. In any given year, there are 300 to 1,000 endorsements. Based on my study of E&P data, Republican presidential candidates have received more newspaper endorsements over the years — though perhaps things are starting to shift in the Democrats' favor. Let's look at recent decades:

• In the 1940s, out of 1,043 newspaper endorsements: Republican candidates got 76%, Democrats, 24%.
  
• In the '60s, out of 839 newspapers, Republicans received 68%, Democrats, 32%.
  
• In the '80s, out of 452 newspapers, Republicans got 78%, Democrats, 22%.
  
• In the 2000s, out of 394 newspapers, Democrats received 51.9% of the endorsements, Republicans 48.1%.
  

The bottom line: Newspapers do not lean toward the Democratic candidates in their endorsements. Quite the contrary, Republicans are favored more often by editorial boards, a pattern that might reappear this year.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/04/newspaper-endorsements-election/1681 307/

posted November 05, 2012 01:10 PM            

These are not newspapers which endorsed John McCain in 2008.

posted November 07, 2012 08:21 AM            

"Sathyameva Jayate". A sanskrit saying which means "Truth always Triumphs".