Romney endorsement too narrow

We wholeheartedly disagree with your endorsement of Romney for President.

How can the Daily Herald question whether President Obama's “inability to work across the aisle” was his administration's fault or that of the opposition when Speaker Mitch McConnell stated four years ago that his party's mission was to make President Obama a one-term President? Cooperation from the Republicans … NO! Perhaps President Obama's administration could have accomplished more and would not have needed to pass the Affordable Care Act partisanly if Congress had shown even an inkling of cooperation.

Other important issues not discussed in your endorsement of Romney/Ryan but proposed by them to balance their budget are women's reproductive rights, equal pay for equal jobs, and elimination of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as we know it. All of these will certainly affect many, many people and should be considered carefully in an endorsement of the President of the United States.

You stated Romney has “been successful in all walks of life.” That was then … this is now. How can you even consider his success as president when no one even knows how he claims he will do what he claims he will do? He has never given us any specific plans to accomplish his agenda. One minute he's against something, and the next he's for it. His “Etch-a-Sketching” and “flip-flopping” leave too much doubt in our minds to trust him with our country. And don't we, as the American public, need to trust in our president?

You have based your endorsement on one focus — jobs. And although this is a very important issue, it is not the only important consideration in this election. We feel you, as a news media entity, have not examined the whole picture, only a portion. Many people's lives and livelihoods are at stake in this election — not just the unemployed.

Kent and Becky Buchholz

Geneva