The Daily Herald's endorsement of Mitt Romney is factually incomplete and intellectually imprecise. I commend your attempt to present a balanced opinion; I agree with your observation that "The historic intransigence of a sizable bloc of Republicans in Congress has contributed mightily to the partisanship" addling and circumventing legislative progress. However, your logic is self-contradictory.
Your endorsement states: "We view ourselves as independent, fiscally conservative, socially progressive, an advocate always for individual liberty." I am a woman. If you were truly advocating for individual liberty, you could not logically support a candidate and political platform which deny women the liberty to choose whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a pregnancy possibly resulting from incest or rape. You find Romney "a moderate Republican." Do you also consider his running mate, Ryan, a moderate Republican? If so, review Ryan's statements regarding the rights of women to have control over their own bodies. The statements are on record.
Not intended for the record was Romney's infamous assertion that 47 percent of Americans don't pay taxes; his implication is that these Americans are slackers who prefer to receive food stamps rather than work.
Yes, I'm aware Romney retracted that particularly egregious statement. Uh huh. A true progressive once asked himself, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then. I contradict myself." The Daily Herald and Mr. Romney would do well to conduct similar self-assessments.
You claim to be "socially progressive." Yet you state, "At a time when the economy was wracked, (Obama) chose ... to focus on health care reform." Your implication is that health care reform and the state of the economy are mutually exclusive issues. They're not.
You conclude, "This time, we believe (Romney) offers the best hope for all Americans." No, he doesn't. Mitt Romney most assuredly does not offer the best hope for this American.
Nancy Ungar Foust