. . . perhaps taking its cue from the largest paper in the Hawkeye State has just endorsed Mitt Romney for President, citing the failure of Barack Obama to live up to his promise or to do his job. . .
It is precisely this kind of partisan divide that Obama promised to end. He was going to make history not only as the United States’ first black president but as its healer, vowing to lead the nation into a new era of cooperation. But that promise to blend blue America and red America into purple America is an example of Obama’s failure of leadership.
Sad to say, the reservations our editorial board expressed about Obama in 2008 have been borne out. His inexperience in an executive position has been exposed. His naivete about his chances of getting much of his program through a deeply partisan Congress has been cured the hard way.
Instead of taking charge in Washington, Obama has shown unwillingness to take even the most basic step in presidential leadership: picking up the Oval Office phone to bring his influence to bear on reluctant representatives and senators.
By contrast, the editors find Mitt Romney to be
. . . an honorable, trustworthy and steady leader who, had he been the Republican Party’s nominee four years ago, would have given Obama a tougher challenge than the reckless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Romney has proven his leadership qualities as a business success, as the trouble-shooting head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as the governor of Democratic Party-dominated Massachusetts.
And, at a time when leading Republicans and Democrats fly the flag of inflexibility, the worst thing that many critics say about Romney is that he is too flexible, that he bends his policies to the situations in front of him.
As president, Romney would not be restrained by foolish consistency. He would be expected to do the right thing no matter where the solutions originate. This is the most precious trait an officeholder can have in this era of corrosive hyperpartisanship.