The New York Times Definitely Doesn’t Endorse Mitt Romney

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21:  U.S. President Barack Obama urges Congress to pass legislation that would keep federal student loan rates from doubling during an event in the East Room of the White House June 21, 2012 in Washington, DC. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that if Congress doesn't act, subsidized student loan debt would double to 6.8 percent on July 1, affecting nearly 7.4 million people who currently hold loans like Pell Grants and Stafford loans.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/2012 Getty Images

The New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for president today, which itself is not very surprising. Unlike the New Yorker (and many others), the paper was "enthusiastic" in its call for the re-election of Obama, who the editors praised for showing "a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth" despite the "implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery." However, the piece's more interesting element was its brutal characterization of Mitt Romney: 

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.

The editorial goes on to describe Romney's economic plan (or "as much as we know about it") as one that would "not create broad prosperity" and warns that the Republican candidate would "no doubt" appoint supreme court justices who would seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It also cites Obama's "impressive achievements" on things like health care and civil rights and his "smart policy" when it comes to foreign affairs. (Romney's foreign policy, meanwhile, is deemed "a frightening prospect.") Having dispensed with Romney, the authors wrapped the whole thing up with "the hope that [Obama's] victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need." Best to end on a point all readers can agree with, we suppose.