Quote from ABC news story (link at end):
In a blow to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Utah's largest newspaper today slammed his candidacy and endorsed President Obama instead.
Despite being credited for saving the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and making Utah his home at one time, the Salt Lake City Tribune said that the state's "favorite adopted son," Romney, has become "the party's shape-shifting nominee."
"In considering which candidate to endorse, the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem-solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago," the editorial board wrote. "Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb."
The party's shape'shifting nominee. Ouch.
But the Salt Lake City Tribune is spot on.
Read the full link. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/utah-new … d=17519264
Interesting list of papers that have endorsed and have not endorsed.
If the Manchester Union Leader, possibly the most conservative newspaper in the US, has withheld endorsement of Romney, what could that possibly mean?
The lack of endorsement means....nothing!
Romney wins BIG!
Hey, RG, I'm with you when it comes to endorsements. I'm putting my money on the biggest selling Halloween mask.
And another predictor bites the dust.
It seems that liberal media bias is everywhere. Not only in the polls, but in the reports of which candidate's mask is the biggest seller.
Sorry, Quill. It appears you're going to have to choose either another candidate or another method of identifying yours!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drenn … loween-mas
Don’t be sorry, MM. I’m sticking with masks. My purchases of Obama masks outnumber my Romney purchases 2 to 1.
I wonder how many different versions of the Romney mask they have? Let's see..
There's "Severly Conservative Mitt" and "Moderate Mitt" and "Bain Mitt" and "Governor Mitt" and "French Missionary Mitt" and "Mormon Deacon Mitt" and "Binder Mitt" and...
I think it's too late to edit the thread title.
Probably should have said "Utah PAPER" not "Utah"...
But the boys of Hub Pages will crucify me regardless.
While you may believe a paper to be Conservative most editorial boards scream leftist.
The local paper here may as well just skew the print on their editorial pages left to keep folks from wondering.
It won't affect anything.
You're kidding, right?
We're talking the newspapr of Salt Lake City Utah. Headquarters of the Mormon Church.
In a solidly red state that has always been and will always be solidly red.
There is nothing left-leaning about the editorial board of this particular newspaper.
Their point, which seems to be getting lost here, is that they WANT to endorse Romney. Romney is Utah's "favorite adopted son." He has done a lot for the state. He has done a lot for SLC.
But they are seeing a very different Romney from the one who saved their Olympics in 2002.
In fact, they are seeing a very different Romney from the Romney of a month ago.
They don't know who Romney is anymore.
They can't endorse a candidate if they don't know what his real positions on the issues are.
Who cares? Romney wins Utah without this papers endorsement. I'm sure you can find Reagan flipping off someone...get busy!
MM... the Salt Lake Tribune was started as an anti-Mormon paper. It represents liberal utah(which isn't as liberal as most other liberal places), because most of the liberal people in Utah live in/around SLC.
The paper endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Yup. Right before the 2000s, it was sold, and started to be more conservative. A few years ago, it went bankrupt and was sold again.
Funny how the message changes when the owners change, right?
It's never been the newspaper of choice for conservatives, or especially Mormons.
Interesting. It makes sense that if there are going to any progressives in the state they would be up north near SLC (esp. Park City where I think they have some hoity toity film festival plus draws tourists from out of state).
I looked through the edition online and found it seemingly pretty balanced.
I also read the full text of their endorsement of Obama. The news coverage extracts only 1 paragraph. It's actually quite clear that they really, really, really wanted to be able to Romney. But they simply could not keep up with his policy shifts.
I saw that their religion writer had won a prestigious religion journalism prize from Cornell. Other winners of that prize were from Tennesee and Tulsa -- I found that interesting.
I saw that they have News sections titled "LDS Church" and "Polygamy."
BTW, who owns it now?
Have you seen Obama talking about the new disease, Romnesia? For candidates who can't remember their own positions from day to day. He also pointed out that since Romney has suffered from this condition for 6 years, Obamacare does not exclude patients with pre-existing conditions, so he can be helped....
Yes, I have. It's sweet. And the tie to Obamacare and preexisting conditions is the cherry on top.
It's ALL over the news.
I guess binders are now as forgotten as Romney's previously held positions.
Which also lost him endorsement of SLC newspaper.
So far I've only read this one commentary, but I think it hits it well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … inions_pop
Utah has six electoral votes-- and is considered to be solidly for Romney, despite the Tribune editorial. (There are 27 other newspapers in Utah.)
Yes, and the article states that. That regardless of the SLC paper's lack of endorsement, the state is solidly red and all the EC votes will go to Romney.
Notwithstanding, the Olympics were in SLC. Of all the Utah papers, they should be most familiar with Romney's capabilities. Which they praise.
But they are saying what many people are also sayng, that they don't even recognize the current Romney.
Of course they would not endorse Romney. One their board members was on the original committee that was being investigated for corruption before Romney came along and fixed it.
And what scandal is behind the Cleveland Plain Dealer's endorsement?
Note that this is not some leftist rag:
Past presidential endorsements
Thomas Dewey, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have each received multiple presidential endorsements from The Plain Dealer.
If newspaper endorsements don't matter, why do they continue to offer them? I think people do look to their local newspaper to distill often complex and contentious issues -- certainly better than the constant barrage of negative attack ads on TV!
To me, it's refreshing to see someone state, forthrightly and articulatleyy, the things that have NOT been said loudly or forcefully enough in this campaign. And notice that they are honest in stating they wish Obama would be more clear on what he plans to do in Term 2 AND, that like the SLC paper, they WISH they could endorse Romney:
"Four years ago, this newspaper's editorial board enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama, then a young senator from Illinois, for president of the United States. As much as we admired the long and courageous service of his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, we believed that the nation needed fresh ideas and the fresh start that a leader with Obama's charisma and only-in-America backstory could provide.
Today, we recommend President Obama's re-election. He has led the nation back from the brink of depression. Ohio in particular has benefited from his bold decision to revive the domestic auto industry. Because of his determination to fulfill a decades-old dream of Democrats, 30 million more Americans will soon have health insurance. His Race to the Top initiative seeded many of the education reforms embodied in Cleveland's Transformation Plan. He ended the war in Iraq and refocused the battle to disrupt al-Qaida and its terrorist allies. He ordered the risky attack inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.
And yet our endorsement this year comes with less enthusiasm or optimism.
Obama has changed -- and it's more than gray hair. The unifier of 2008 now engages in relentless attacks on his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The big dreamer of 2008 offers little in the way of a second-term agenda. There is a world-weariness unseen four years ago.
In fairness, the Obama of 2008 often warned his swooning audiences that change would be slow and painstaking. The four years since then surely have been far more trying than he or almost anyone could have imagined.
We wish President Obama had used this campaign to showcase a more substantial vision for the many challenges that still confront America. The nation needs to get more people back to work. It needs to get its financial house in order, reform its tax code and streamline -- though not gut -- regulation in order to reassure business and speed recovery. It needs to invest in infrastructure, education and job training. It needs to expand exports and engage the world.
Not only do we still believe this president can do those things, we think he can do it with policies most likely to lift Ohio and Ohioans. Obama's leadership has made a difference when it mattered most. His stimulus package helped avert an even worse economic collapse and initiated investments in education, manufacturing and green energy that should yet pay dividends. His commitment to a balanced path toward deficit reduction won't please the most zealous members of either party, but it makes sense for the nation.
Much of what beset America during Obama's first term lay outside his direct control. The bobsled slide into recession was in full motion when he took office. The economic calamity has been global; recovery, sporadic and weak. Obama's attempts to reach across the aisle politically were met with unbending resistance, even belligerence.
And yet, Obama has often been his own worst enemy.
On stimulus and health care, in particular, he ceded too much freedom to doctrinaire Democrats on Capitol Hill and failed to engage the American people. When Republicans regained control of the House in 2010, he was slow to show that he had heard the angry cry from voters. Presented with a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by a bipartisan commission he appointed, he offered only a tepid embrace. He needlessly alienated business leaders whose buy-in the nation needs to restore prosperity.
This litany of missed opportunities, as much as the grim economic statistics that have become America's unacceptable new normal, left us sorely tempted to endorse Gov. Romney this fall. Like President Obama, he is a man of public achievement and private honor. He was born to wealth and power, but used those advantages well: building a prosperous business; rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics; being a leader in his church and serving as an effective governor. It is the track record of a man who gets things done. No wonder so many frustrated Americans appear eager to elect him.
But which Romney would they elect? The rather liberal one who ran for the Senate in 1994? The pragmatic governor? The sharply conservative candidate of this year's GOP primaries? The reborn moderate of recent weeks?
All politicians change positions over time -- Obama in 2008 shifted his position on health care reform more to the center. But Romney's frequent changes raise questions about his core principles and make his lack of policy details all the more troubling. They make you wonder if he would stand up to the more extreme elements in his own party, especially to the House Republicans who undercut Ohioan John Boehner's attempts to negotiate a deficit and debt deal.
Romney's tendency to bluster on foreign policy provides more cause for doubt. With tens of thousands of young Americans still in harm's way in Afghanistan, the United States cannot afford to be drawn into new wars without clear national interests at stake or to sap its resources in further open-ended conflicts. The Benghazi killings reveal the risks of an "Arab Spring" in which terrorists have gained new weaponry and new freedom to operate. But these challenges require inventive diplomacy and international engagement, not slogans or swagger.
Obama has shown that he favors engagement over bluster, and practical solutions over easy bromides. That's what the country needs.
Consider a defining moment early in Obama's first term -- one with special resonance in Ohio: The outgoing Bush administration had used TARP funds to throw a lifeline to General Motors and Chrysler, but the two automakers were still at death's door. They wanted more cash and offered vague promises to change their ways. Public opinion opposed another bailout. Romney urged the companies to file for traditional bankruptcy -- at a time when private-sector credit was frozen even for healthy firms.
Obama told the companies to restructure using the Bankruptcy Court and set conditions for government financing: GM's chairman had to go. Excess plants and dealerships had to close. Chrysler had to be bought out by Fiat. Contracts had to be renegotiated.
It was unpopular but gutsy. And it worked. Ohioans today are making cars in Lordstown and Toledo. They're making parts and steel for Ford, Honda and other automakers. They're back on the job.
That's leadership that deserves a chance to finish the job. Re-elect President Obama."
All I know is that my parents, who live in Utah, were not in the least impressed with Romney swooping in to take credit and pass out plum jobs to his cronies.
A lot of boondoggles were left behind by the SLC Olympics, now falling into decay, and a lot of wasted tax dollars.
Also, having moved west from Boston, I got to hear all my friends tearing their hair about Mitt when he was running the state. The universal health care was the ONE program of his that they actually benefitted from, and now he's utterly against it (since Obamacare is based on it).
HE'S FOLLOWING ME...HELP!
Should we start a new forum thread?
"Romney now stalking hubber Greekgeek!"
As a Utah resident, I'm not surprised. SLC is where all the liberals in the state live and the SLT loves to rag on Mormons. Doesn't really matter though. Utah is so solidly conservative that Romney's still going to win easily (there's also the large same-religion base voting for him) and most Mormon's don't read the SLT. This just becomes another reason for them not to.
SLT is just trying to make themselves feel special and stand-out.
Here's another very strong Obama endorsement from the Tampa Bay Times, which is Florida's largest newspaper. It goes into print tomorrow.
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editori … 257328.ece
It would be nice if the newspaper endorsments really meant something...but I'm pretty sure they mean aolutely nothing.
Newspapers and online news are the worst places to get opinions, and some of the worst places to get facts.
Where should people get their opinions, then?
The candidates' own websites?
Cuz they're not likely to get a whole lot of FACTS there!
Primary sources. If a newspaper says a poll said X, check the poll. I've seen them wrong before.
If a newspaper says a financial report says X, check the report. I've seen them wrong many times before.
If they say that a candidate said something in a speech, check the video or transcript for the speech. They've gotten them wrong before.
Reporters/writers aren't experts... they are often writing about things they don't really know about.
People need to learn to research, instead of just reading a paper.
by Credence26 months ago
I have to remind myself that it is Utah and crazy things go on there and with its neighbor to the north, Idaho. I guess the Governor is interested in preventing blindness or seeing that those 'special drawers' are...
by undermyhat4 years ago
Britain may be treating their fighting men and women right by getting them into the Olympics but for all the wrong reasons. Attendence is very disappointing so to fill the seats the British Olympics is giving...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
We have Meat Loaf*http://www.itv.com/news/2012-10-26/meat … of-romney/Here's the Meat Loaf video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqIgki3Od2AorBruce Springsteenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1W7HEaT9kwWho does a...
by screaming4 years ago
TO every Republican who are voting for Romney, not because you like him, but because you dislike President Obama! Listen to President Clintons speech! You might find yourself rethinking, and voting for President Obama...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
There are some stinging indictments of both Romney and Obama in this sort of backhanded endorsement from the British "The Economist."What are your favorite/least favorite (or in the Queen's English, I suppose...
by Sam Dolloff5 years ago
With the debates underway, and the adds starting to air. The 2012 elections will be here before we know it. I have my favorite candidates I am wondering what others think about the lineup? Please be...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.