While many newspaper endorsements of the presidential candidates are expected to be for one candidate or the other due to the newspapers’ past affiliations and endorsements of the candidates’ political parties, there have been surprises in in some of the 2012 publication endorsements during the 2012 campaign.READ MORE: Closing Arguments Begin In Jussie Smollett's Trial For Allegedly Staging Phony Hate Crime; 'We Have Proven This By Overwhelming Evidence'
Of the many justified endorsements of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama, the reason given most often for the endorsement for a change in the White House is due to the failed United States economy compounded by President Obama’s un-kept promises regarding the job market’s unemployment rate which still hovers around 8.0% rather than the approximately 5.0% that the president marked as his goal for the nation at the end of his first term.
In the past week, there have been some newspapers, though very few, that have given the nod to challenger Mitt Romney rather than President Barack Obama due to the growing scandal regarding the 9-11 terrorist attack on the Benghazi, Libya consulate which resulted in four Americans being murdered, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
As the controversy continues to escalate right up to Election Day, more and more persons and organizations are becoming more vocal about their concerns and discontent over the controversy – primarily being concerned about the media and the Obama administration burying the issue, at least until after the election if not longer.
In terms of newspapers that are not endorsing the president due to the economy, the Des Moines Register summed up the concerns of its editorial board well by publishing: “[President Barack Obama’s] best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.”
One of the strongest non-endorsements of President Barack Obama due to the Benghazi, Libya deadly attack and alleged cover-up came in the form of an editorial on Thursday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The publication severely attacked the president with the blistering claim that due to the Benghazi, Libya attack in which four Americans died, President Obama is “unworthy” to be the nation’s commander-in-chief. The headline screamed what many Americans have felt since the 9-11 terrorist attack when Obama and his administration claimed the attack was a reaction to a viral amateur video: “Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief”.READ MORE: Justin Fields To Return As Bears' Starting QB On Sunday Against Packers
Promoting a story which most media have chosen to ignore, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has justifiably stood up to print: “The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.”
The newspapers that are not endorsing President Barack Obama are extremely brave. They are to be positively recognized for their courage to stand up against the onslaught of the liberal media which refuses to speak in the best interest of the country as the presidential election nears.
About Scott Paulson
Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.
MORE NEWS: 71-Year-Old Man Shot Multiple Times, Killed While Heading To Store To Buy Newspaper In Chinatown