"Unbelievable" - The Washington Post Endorses Obama
Prepared to be "shocked."
This week's Friday "surprise": The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United States.
This week's real surprise: The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United States with grave reservations.
What? Stop the presses.
The nation's second most liberal newspaper (after The New York Times) actually called Obama a better "navigator," (whatever the hell that means) who "could better lead the country during the next four years - and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing."
So where's the criticism? Keep reading.
The "bold" and "unbiased journalists" of The Washington Post went on to say they made their judgments with "eyes open to the disappointments of Mr. Obama's time in office."
So what might those "disappointments" be to "journalists" who failed to see one major flaw in the incumbent president over the past 44 months in office?
In their valued opinion, he did not end, as he had promised time after time, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions" on fiscal matters. They go on to express that they "... were disappointed that Mr. Obama allowed the bipartisan recommendations of his fiscal commission to wither and die and that he and Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) failed to seal a fiscal deal in the summer of 2011."
Really? This is The Washington Post?
Continuing, "Mr. Obama alienated Congress and business leaders by isolating himself inside a tight White House circle that manages to be both arrogant and thin-skinned. Too often his administration treats business as an obstacle rather than a partner."
What, there's more?
According to the editorial staff at The Washington Post, the president hardly tried to achieve the immigration reform and climate-change policy he promised.
And foreign policy?
Well, The Washington Post said the president "... was hesitant and inconsistent in responding to the two greatest and most unexpected foreign-policy opportunities of his presidency: the pro-democracy uprising in Iran in 2009 and the Arab Spring two years later."
How can that be?
We all thought from reading your stories in The Washington Post the last three years he was our savior in the Middle East and North Africa?
Well, according to The Washington Post, "Mr. Obama kept the United States on the sidelines as Syria plunged into civil war, costing more than 30,000 lives - most of them civilians - and breeding extremism that may destabilize a half-dozen countries."
It gets better.
"By not securing a presence in Iraq after ending the U.S. military mission, he failed to capitalize on America's decade-long commitment to that nation, and his ambivalence regarding Afghanistan - sending more troops, but with artificial deadlines and no clear commitment to their success - promises trouble in coming years."
You mean those brave men and women died for nothing in the final analysis by The Washington Post?
Well, I'll be. And he still got their endorsement. I guess that means even with these "minor flaws," the incumbent president is "better" than the untested challenger.
* The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze
Related Opinions News