Charles Cooke over in the Corner has a good write-up on the Sentinel endorsement of Mitt Romney, calling it “brutal” and noting the paper endorsed Obama in ‘08 and favored Kerry in ‘04.
What I found worth noting, however, was the endorsement didn’t really get into the specifics of what’s offered by either candidate. Here’s an example:
But the core of Romney’s campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government’s balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
I can see Dems on their computers now, angrily writing how the above is a “lie,” “the math doesn’t add up,” “not true,” “half-true,” “a bajillion Pinocchios,” etc.
Fact-checking is important, but the economics of it can’t be ignored. Readers eagerly click on those articles, and clicks means revenue. Hence, the increase in outfits fact-checking everything.
And what we’re left with are dozens upon dozens of “fact-checks” that say whatever the candidate said is partially true to some extent. And that’s worthless, leaving us with endorsements like this which parrot back campaign talking points instead of getting into any detail.
The Sentinel ends with this:
This is Romney’s time to lead, again. If he doesn’t produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we’ll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don’t think he’s a business-hating socialist. We don’t think he’s intent on weakening the American military. We don’t think he’s unpatriotic. And, no, we don’t think he was born outside the United States.
But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don’t think that he’s the best qualified candidate in this race.
We endorse Mitt Romney for president.
They could have just as easily have written, “Hey, President Obama gave it a shot, let’s take a flyer on the other guy. And if he doesn’t work, we’ll find somebody else.”
Also missing from the endorsement is any mention of which candidate will do a better job fighting and/or ending the war in Afghanistan. In a military state like Florida, how in good conscience can you omit that from your decision?
This endorsement is good news for Romney, I agree, but I think it shows that the way in which we’re choosing our presidents is deeply flawed.