True leaders also don’t wait until two weeks before Election Day – in the form of a 20-page booklet, no less – to lay out a specific agenda for the next four years. Coupled with the negative tenor of the campaign, that merely confirms the president and his strategists felt that attacking Romney’s agenda was more politically expedient than releasing one of their own.
Some cynics have suggested, only partly in jest, that Obama-Romney is at its core a contest between a man with no plan and man with a plan that doesn’t add up, a reference to Romney’s own unwillingness to lay out details of how he would balance his campaign promises with his tax-and-spending plans.
Nevertheless, we are confident Romney is the candidate who would tackle the serious issues facing this nation, starting with jobs, the economy and the debt. In the end, we couldn’t say the same about the president.Investors' Business Daily has its own editorial about this trend of newspaper editorial boards changing sides this time around. As I've said before, this is in itself rather interesting because so much of journalism these days leans (or flat out runs) left. It's a fascinating look at the editorial boards, and I think some credit must be due to them for being able to look at the real world outside and understand that policies have consequences. Of course, the actual effectiveness of newspaper endorsements on the voting public is another issue entirely. Here's an opinion piece about why they don't matter.