My socialist transcript of tonight's debate

[caroljane]

I apologise to Brant, I will claim alien ignorance. We don't have Marines here that I know of, it is just army or navy, I do not know where I got the impression he was in the marines. Maybe his gung-ho ness in certain situations, or his refusal to be told things that he could not rationally accept.

As to my other falsehoods, go ahead and try to prove some negatives.

[caroljane]

And furthermore Mikee. On another thread, I have forgotten where it is or I would have answered you there. You deplore my socialism because you say I deny the reality of the "socialist experiments" which have caused more death and misery than anything else in history.

First, I am not a Communist. The experiments you reference, I assume to be the graveyards of Russia and China, which have no more to do with socialism as I understand it, than the perpetrators of these murders understood it. Stalin was a psychopath with no political ideology except the power of fear and killing. Mao developed a policy of "permanent revolution", unsustainable and purposefully destructive, for who knows what reason? They were despots who wreaked their will.

My reality is that of growing up within a socialist experiment, in a western country already civilised, and able to sustain national healthcare and education support and old age pensions and the like. I did not see any business stifled (in fact I saw them encouraged and propped up by governments-- Bricklin anybody?)I did not see any death or misery, except the negative misery of one family of my cousins, ten children growing up on a hardscrabble farm, who would have had to quit school at 15 and go to work, if there was any, or emigrate, -- except they had to keep on at school, sustained by the Baby Bonus and their mother's iron will, and they all went on to college or university or professional training, every one. They were home schooled in music by their mother, two are now professional musicians, one an award-winning international organist. All have succeeded, and some have created jobs , and they have kept their skills in the country that nurtured them.

[Mikee]

And furthermore Mikee. On another thread, I have forgotten where it is or I would have answered you there. You deplore my socialism because you say I deny the reality of the "socialist experiments" which have caused more death and misery than anything else in history.

First, I am not a Communist. The experiments you reference, I assume to be the graveyards of Russia and China, which have no more to do with socialism as I understand it, than the perpetrators of these murders understood it. Stalin was a psychopath with no political ideology except the power of fear and killing. Mao developed a policy of "permanent revolution", unsustainable and purposefully destructive, for who knows what reason? They were despots who wreaked their will.

My reality is that of growing up within a socialist experiment, in a western country already civilised, and able to sustain national healthcare and education support and old age pensions and the like. I did not see any business stifled (in fact I saw them encouraged and propped up by governments-- Bricklin anybody?)I did not see any death or misery, except the negative misery of one family of my cousins, ten children growing up on a hardscrabble farm, who would have had to quit school at 15 and go to work, if there was any, or emigrate, -- except they had to keep on at school, sustained by the Baby Bonus and their mother's iron will, and they all went on to college or university or professional training, every one. They were home schooled in music by their mother, two are now professional musicians, one an award-winning international organist. All have succeeded, and some have created jobs , and they have kept their skills in the country that nurtured them.

Carol, the comments you are referring are in post #23 of this thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12631&hl=

Evidently you have no experience living in a non-socialist society and cannot imagine surviving any hardship without the "help" of benevolent government agencies. As Margaret Thatcher said (paraphrase) "What happens when you run out of other people's money?" "You" refers to govt schemers, not you personally. The uncle who raised me did have to quit school after the eighth grade and go to work on his step fathers farm after his own father committed suicide. He was the most honest and hardest working man I've ever known. He also started and ran several successful small businesses in his lifetime. I cannot imagine him ever saying something he did not know was true. Note this is different than not just deliberately telling a lie. If he did not know something were true with certainty he would not tell someone it was true. He never spoke in absolutes.

[caroljane]

And furthermore Mikee. On another thread, I have forgotten where it is or I would have answered you there. You deplore my socialism because you say I deny the reality of the "socialist experiments" which have caused more death and misery than anything else in history.

First, I am not a Communist. The experiments you reference, I assume to be the graveyards of Russia and China, which have no more to do with socialism as I understand it, than the perpetrators of these murders understood it. Stalin was a psychopath with no political ideology except the power of fear and killing. Mao developed a policy of "permanent revolution", unsustainable and purposefully destructive, for who knows what reason? They were despots who wreaked their will.

My reality is that of growing up within a socialist experiment, in a western country already civilised, and able to sustain national healthcare and education support and old age pensions and the like. I did not see any business stifled (in fact I saw them encouraged and propped up by governments-- Bricklin anybody?)I did not see any death or misery, except the negative misery of one family of my cousins, ten children growing up on a hardscrabble farm, who would have had to quit school at 15 and go to work, if there was any, or emigrate, -- except they had to keep on at school, sustained by the Baby Bonus and their mother's iron will, and they all went on to college or university or professional training, every one. They were home schooled in music by their mother, two are now professional musicians, one an award-winning international organist. All have succeeded, and some have created jobs , and they have kept their skills in the country that nurtured them.

Carol, the comments you are referring are in post #23 of this thread: http://www.objectivi...topic=12631&hl=

Evidently you have no experience living in a non-socialist society and cannot imagine surviving any hardship without the "help" of benevolent government agencies. As Margaret Thatcher said (paraphrase) "What happens when you run out of other people's money?" "You" refers to govt schemers, not you personally. The uncle who raised me did have to quit school after the eighth grade and go to work on his step fathers farm after his own father committed suicide. He was the most honest and hardest working man I've ever known. He also started and ran several successful small businesses in his lifetime. I cannot imagine him ever saying something he did not know was true. Note this is different than not just deliberately telling a lie. If he did not know something were true with certainty he would not tell someone it was true. He never spoke in absolutes.

I honour the uncle who raised you, but that such a good man should have to quit school.....I was only saying, that in another sytdem, such good men did not have to, nor have to sacrifice their honesty either.

[PDS]

I apologise to Brant, I will claim alien ignorance. We don't have Marines here that I know of, it is just army or navy, I do not know where I got the impression he was in the marines. Maybe his gung-ho ness in certain situations, or his refusal to be told things that he could not rationally accept.

As to my other falsehoods, go ahead and try to prove some negatives.

Daunce: I assume you know I was jesting and jousting with you. You are incapable of falsehoods, as far as I can tell, even when making your point with a well-phrased reductio ad adsurdum.

And since I was in the Marines, I felt comfortable making the distinction about Brant, who honorably served our country during wartime--something which, thankfully, I was never required to do.

To be more serious, however, and to try to make a point more pertinent to the issue at hand, I do think it would be difficult for somebody who has not lived their lives as Americans in the American culture to appreciate how annoying the generation of the first questioner types are in our midst. To Americans of a certain age, we have seen almost an entire generation of American males turn into beta-males: (think the Jim Halpern on The Office), with slumped shoulders, sing-song diction in which nearly statement out of their mouths ends with equivalent of a question mark, very little common-sense, and a very high level of expectation about what society owes them.

I have employed these types, unfortunately. I have seen them on juries. I have relatives married to them. If they haven't actually had life handed to them on a silver platter already, they expect society to do so, and soon. The people of my father's generation would never dream of thinking that the government owes them a job. The people of my son's generation not only have such expectations, they have no shame in saying so. On national TV.

The fact that Ms. Crowley picked this young man to ask the first question of the debate speaks volumes about the trajectory of our country.

[anthony]

Simple human fact: when you are free to give, or not to give, you tend to giving

(and helping.) Take away the option, and many people become resentful of forced giving,

while others quickly become expectantly entitled to the receiving.

Either way, an unhappy society. Mainly because our masters deem that life must be certain, that 'good' must be coerced from us, and that "equality" is a virtue.

The pragmatic genius of the 'socialist experiment' - where it has superficially worked - is in socialism matching itself accurately to private enterprise's output - keeping the golden goose just alive. Socialism needs capitalism.

Sure, it has none of communism's terrors, but it quietly kills the best in ALL men and women.

(I've heard there are many families in Sweden who haven't worked for three generations.)

Measure socialism by its long-term effects on a society, and its short-term effects upon specific individuals.

[caroljane]

I apologise to Brant, I will claim alien ignorance. We don't have Marines here that I know of, it is just army or navy, I do not know where I got the impression he was in the marines. Maybe his gung-ho ness in certain situations, or his refusal to be told things that he could not rationally accept.

As to my other falsehoods, go ahead and try to prove some negatives.

Daunce: I assume you know I was jesting and jousting with you. You are incapable of falsehoods, as far as I can tell, even when making your point with a well-phrased reductio ad adsurdum.

And since I was in the Marines, I felt comfortable making the distinction about Brant, who honorably served our country during wartime--something which, thankfully, I was never required to do.

To be more serious, however, and to try to make a point more pertinent to the issue at hand, I do think it would be difficult for somebody who has not lived their lives as Americans in the American culture to appreciate how annoying the generation of the first questioner types are in our midst. To Americans of a certain age, we have seen almost an entire generation of American males turn into beta-males: (think the Jim Halpern on The Office), with slumped shoulders, sing-song diction in which nearly statement out of their mouths ends with equivalent of a question mark, very little common-sense, and a very high level of expectation about what society owes them.

I have employed these types, unfortunately. I have seen them on juries. I have relatives married to them. If they haven't actually had life handed to them on a silver platter already, they expect society to do so, and soon. The people of my father's generation would never dream of thinking that the government owes them a job. The people of my son's generation not only have such expectations, they have no shame in saying so. On national TV.

The fact that Ms. Crowley picked this young man to ask the first question of the debate speaks volumes about the trajectory of our country.

I did not see the debate, I have had TV and computer problems, nobody knows the trouble I' ve seen, or my sorrows or triumphs over the overworked staff at the tech store, where I just paced up and down alternately scowling and weeping.

You are right PDS, I cannot really comprehend a young man who feels entitled and distentitled, or that he should feel that in America of all places his own future is out of his hands. If you have come to this in one generation , given my own bias,i th I would blame the apocalyptic media who encourage them to think so.

My own sons were able to find niches in the world of work through their own efforts and I am grateful for this fold in national and economic history.

I am intrigued that you were a Marine, I have always thought it to be the most disciplined of the services, is that what sparked your zenness?

The rising inflection, the question-mark end of a declarative sentence, is something I have only so far seen in women here, or very young boys. If it is coming to the men, I too am prepared to despair,

[Brant Gaede]

Without reference to a moral base--even libertarians can do this--we can always find ways socialism does good for x and y and z, maybe even for a whole country as the discussion devolves into an endless litany of facts and faux facts and facts appropriately and inappropriately juxtapositioned.

Socialism always involves violation of rights defined right into its various manifestations. That some societies can gloss this over and call themselves civilized or even superior to "dog-eat-dog" capitalism while others cannot--the fascists and communists and Nazis and so on and so forth, is delusional. Look.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Use

moral

always

facts

faux

in a sentence; mix well;

serve up a juxtapsosition

[william.scherk]

I have called this election in my tight group of political people for about a month and a half for Romney. [ ...] Electoral vote will be 325 to 196

If this is Adam's final answer (I hope not), then the electoral map would show something like this:

-- this screenshot of a 327/211 split is from http://www.270towin.com. The interactive electoral calculator is a handy way of putting scenarios in play. By observing swing-state polling, one can make more or less reliable guesses. I think Adam's guess is way off, judging from today's soundings.

Polls from both swing and solid states are agglomerated at 270towin's polling section: http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/

[Brant Gaede]

I'd give Romney Pennsylvania too.

--Brant

maybe New Mexico

[Selene]

Lol...I am about to move Pennsylvania into the Romney column...he is within three in Pa.

Additionally, the trajectory is moving away from the President. To see him in New Hampshire is astounding since it was not expected that he would have a problem carrying that state.

[william.scherk]

I'd give Romney Pennsylvania too.

That could happen. The latest polls from Pennsylvania (won by Obama in 2008) show variation between the lowest Obama percent (of likely voters) at 43% to Romney's 40% (Siena College, Oct 9) and Public Policy's numbers from Sept 29: Obama at 52% and Romney at 40%.

maybe New Mexico

Possible too, I suppose. The latest numbers from 270towin show Obama at 49%, Romney at 39%. The highest percentage reached by Romney is from July's Public Pollicy sample, with 46% versus Obama at 50%.

I am about to move Pennsylvania into the Romney column...he is within three in Pa.

What polling do you use to push PA out of the Obama win column into a Romney win, Adam?

Edited October 18, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

The pragmatic genius of the 'socialist experiment' - where it has superficially worked - is in socialism matching itself accurately to private enterprise's output - keeping the golden goose just alive. Socialism needs capitalism.

I have to agree with the broad strokes here: a pragmatic genius of 'the socialist experiment' is one thing -- I do not find a genius in socialist pragmatics, not at all, while I do think that no 'socialist experiment' can find success without a (relatively) free economy.

But to understand my agreement with the point that Socialism Need Capitalism, I will try to illustrate, even give a tie-back into electoral politics in the USA.

I think the socialist experiment in the USA and in Canada began at roughly the same time. I give an example of Worker's Compensation and State Pensions. Those who are familiar with the history of these two experiments will note that the experiments were designed to 'fix' something. In the first case it was litigation costs following earlier laws that allowed workers to sue their employers for injuries recieved on the job. The compulsion (making Worker's compensation mandatory) was introduced following court decisions that found compulsory schemes constitutional. In every case, states can compel (and penalize non-adherence) employers to subscribe to state schemes.

State pension's first experiment in the modern age in the USA (notwithstanding military or service pensions offered following the revolutionary and Civll wars) began more or less at the same time as Canada. These experiments compelled contributions.

Skipping ahead to our age, the socialist experiment of worker's compensation and state-mandated pensions has also been added to by various 'social welfare' schemes for the indigent or victims of disaster, for children and for other social groups targetted: the unemployed, widows of breadwinners, etcetera and so on..

None of these experiments have elsewhere achieved the full range of products that are the norm in the so-called Western Democracies -- not in the former or current Communist nations, not in 'emerging nations,' and definitely not in the poor and struggling nations. China has fuck all for pensions or assistance for its people since the fall of the Iron Ricebowl. No countries other than the rich and productive have managed to provide the range of compulsion and social products mandated by nations of the West.

Folks who think that Canada is 'socialist' while the USA is 'capitalist' are making a mistake, a category error.

-- to bring back the electoral angle on socialism/capitalism/compulsion, I mark out the two times Romney mentioned Canada; in one instance he highlighted the difference in corporate income tax levels. Canada's are (by his reckoning) significantly lower.

In the other instance he hammered on a 'pipeline from Canada.' What I got out of that was his idea that 'Energy Independence' could be achieved in America by importing its present day comsumption from, um, foreign sources -- from us.

In my opinion, US energy independence (from the Middle East/Venezuela/Libya) is a pipe-dream. There simply is not enough immediately recoverable oil in North America to feed the beast, not without new energy sources to displace - and not without forcing Canada to abandon its other markets for our products. Recall that Canada has the third largest world reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- and more than ten times the amount recoverable from the USA.

Edited October 18, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

So well presented wss, and it so confirms my impression of how Canada and the US have mirrored each other in those social undergarments we habitually wear, -- yet we think of them so differently. And wash them in public, with such aplomb or indignation.

I wonder if it is not the very individualism that we all share here on OL, I think, that yet makes us so different in how we characterise our political leaders. The main Founding Father of our country was after all, not a noble patriot general of unimpeachable honesty and integrity and courage, just a canny Scots politician of unusual intelligence, who was usually drunk. We were led through the second World War, through six long weary years, by another canny politician who took all his decisions in consultation with his dead mother and his even deader pet dogs, via seance.We have no tradition of reverence or even excessive admiration for our politicians, we just put up with them and hope to hell they will do a decent job. And to their credit, (current Ontarians excepted) they have tried to, and to our profit, the workmanlike Pearsons and the insouciant Trudueaus, have succeeded in much.

[Selene]

I'd give Romney Pennsylvania too.

That could happen. The latest polls from Pennsylvania (won by Obama in 2008) show variation between the lowest Obama percent (of likely voters) at 43% to Romney's 40% (Siena College, Oct 9) and Public Policy's numbers from Sept 29: Obama at 52% and Romney at 40%.

maybe New Mexico

Possible too, I suppose. The latest numbers from 270towin show Obama at 49%, Romney at 39%. The highest percentage reached by Romney is from July's Public Pollicy sample, with 46% versus Obama at 50%.

I am about to move Pennsylvania into the Romney column...he is within three in Pa.

What polling do you use to push PA out of the Obama win column into a Romney win, Adam?

Some of the internals in the Senate race where the gap has been closing between Smith and the Incumbent Casey, Jr. Quinnipiac has it between 2 or 3 points and it has been trending towards Smith, who has strong Tea Party support.

Additionally, there is a strong anti-O'bama vote in the Catholic Democratic voter who is the Reagan Democrat voter. Finally, the normal turnout of black and Philadelphia Democratic machine vote is not going to materialize.

Now this is testimonial. However, I have moved over fifty women who voted for O'bama in 2008 to Romney and they are indicative of a very angry class of voters, mostly Catholic who are furious about the bill of goods they were sold in 2008.

Many of them have relatives in the service and they have had it with the way he treats the military. Including cutting their medical benefits.

Finally, the energy of his base in Pennsylvania is leaking badly. The EPA and his stance on coal. fracking and the lack of delivering jobs is taking its toll.

Adam

[anthony]

Helpful over-view on what I can only think of as soft socialism,

WSS. But it wasn't Canada and the USA I had in mind, really.

The 'hard' version is closer to hand. (25% unemployment, and climbing.)

[william.scherk]

This: "Under federal law, stations must offer presidential campaigns a discounted price to run their spots in the two months leading up to Election Day. In some cases, that means Obama pays almost half as much for an ad."

What? This is Venezuela? Romney spends twice as much and gets less air time...who sponsored and pushed this legislation?

I think someone (not the Salon writer) is mistaking 'presidential campaigns' with 'incumbent presidential campaigns.'

I don't know who originated the legislation or refined the rules or by what process, but this is the root of the regulation (from the FCC):

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.

(b) CHARGES

(1) IN GENERAL. – The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed –

(A) subject to paragraph (2), during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and

(B) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.

I don't think that needs too much interpretation. Lowest Unit Charge is available to both campaigns. SuperPACs are not able to avail themselves of the lower rate, neither those acting for Obama or those acting for Romney.

The differences in strategy between Obama/Romney and various SuperPACS is outined in the story cited by Mike E.

Does that answer your question, Adam Mike?

Edited October 19, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Just got this in...

A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania.

Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.

It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.

"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.

Romney isn't spending much time or money in Pennsylvania, which hasn't backed a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

Every other Pennsylvania poll shows Obama ahead, though by a narrowing margin. A Quinnipiac University poll taken around the same time as the Susquehanna poll shows Obama leading Romney 50 percent to 46 percent.

Susquehanna's automated poll of 1,376 likely voters was taken between Oct. 11 and 13, before the second presidential debate Tuesday that many saw as a comeback for Obama since his Oct. 3 showdown with Romney.

[Selene]

Does that answer your question, Adam?

Don't think it was my question, William.

[Brant Gaede]

If the polls get more reliable the closer to the election to hide any previous bias and they show Romney surging ahead then Dems and Independs previously for O will be disheartened and many will stay home, give up, and the polls will still be wrong for understating the oncoming slaughterfest.

--Brant

[Mikee]

This: "Under federal law, stations must offer presidential campaigns a discounted price to run their spots in the two months leading up to Election Day. In some cases, that means Obama pays almost half as much for an ad."

What? This is Venezuela? Romney spends twice as much and gets less air time...who sponsored and pushed this legislation?

I think someone (not the Salon writer) is mistaking 'presidential campaigns' with 'incumbent presidential campaigns.'

I don't know who originated the legislation or refined the rules or by what process, but this is the root of the regulation (from the FCC):

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.

(b) CHARGES

(1) IN GENERAL. – The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed –

(A) subject to paragraph (2), during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and

(B) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.

I don't think that needs too much interpretation. Lowest Unit Charge is available to both campaigns. SuperPACs are not able to avail themselves of the lower rate, neither those acting for Obama or those acting for Romney.

The differences in strategy between Obama/Romney and various SuperPACS is outined in the story cited by Mike E.

Does that answer your question, Adam Mike?

As well as it could be answered I guess without burying yourself in the minutiae of voting law manipulation of the last few decades. Meanwhile somebody's been driving these deviations from principle (property rights or free speech anyone?) for nefarious purposes, not the libertarians or conservatives I'm guessing. Meanwhile, at present 70% of the US population approves a requirement to show your ID to vote. Not happening this election. Thanks for your reply William.

[Mikee]

I honour the uncle who raised you, but that such a good man should have to quit school.....I was only saying, that in another sytdem, such good men did not have to, nor have to sacrifice their honesty either.

Thank you. But there is no "system" that can protect a man from the eventualities of life and reality. And I believe I told you he was the most honest man I have ever known so he did not "have to" sacrifice honesty for anything. He missed nothing from school. He could run a farm, run a business, keep books, learn anything. He was born in 1908, I believe the typical reading level of an eighth grader when he went to school exceeds the level of college freshman today. He could do everything, carpentry, electrical work, plumbing, fix cars and electric motors and machines. He was not a bad writer, concise and clear. He figured out everything he ever needed to do. He worked as a welder in the shipyards in Richmond, CA during the war when the army wouldn't take him due to a heart murmur (rheumatic fever as a child). We had good reference books in our home, an encyclopedia, many magazines, besides Readers Digest, many outdoor type magazines like Field and Stream and Outdoor Life. Small animal periodicals because he raised them. We got the "Book of Knowledge" annual. And a couple of newspapers. He was a free man, he could not imagine what has become of this country. He had a couple of things he used to say, "It's a free country" and "It takes all kinds to make a world". He died in 1971. I still miss him and lament that I was too young to have made much of myself before he died. I remember talking to him about Ayn Rand after I got out of the Navy. After I went on and on one time he said "If a man won't work he's worth nothing". He believed in doing something, working with a purpose and good intentions. Actions meant more than words, and having something to show for your actions. Sorry to go on, a glass of wine will do that to you.

[Selene]

Folks:

If this poll is accurate, it makes a serious difference in several key swing states and Senate races...it is from October 11th, 2012:

BREAKING: IBD: Romney Leads 44-40 Among Likely Jewish Voters!

October 11, 2012 3:38 PM by Jacob Kornbluh Leave a comment (3) Go to comments

Partial Screen shot of the IBD Poll

*Small sample size. Interpret with caution

Despite losing some ground to Obama in the TIPP/IBD’s Daily tracking poll of Oct. 11, the poll of likely votes shows a dramatic, unprecedented shift among likely Jewish voters, with Romney overtaking the lead from President Obama for the first time.

According to the 5 day polling sample, taken after the Denver debate, Mitt Romney garners support from 44 percent to Obama’s 40 percent. 16 percent remain undecided.

CHART: Obama Attracts 53% of Likely Jewish Voters in Average of IBD Polls

http://gestetnerupda...-jewish-voters/

Also, the Catholic number is a real problem for the President...Ohio, Pennsylvania are in play with that number.

See as of the 10/122012 it was 64% O to 36% R with no undecided so this is a highly volatile number and apparently a *Small sample size. Interpret with caution. http://news.investor...dtipp-poll.aspx

[Selene]

Hell Freezes Over - Again: Mitt Romney Receives Endorsement of Orlando Sentinel

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 09:12 PM PDT

The left-leaning, usually Democrat-supporting, Orlando Sentinel - central Florida's largest newspaper, is endorsing Mitt Romney.

"We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years," the newspaper editorial in Friday's edition said. "For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race."

The Sentinel's endorsement follows Wednesday's endorsement of Mitt Romney by the traditionally liberal Nashville Tennessean, and like the Sentinel, the Tennessean expressed strong disappointment in Obama's record of performance.

Is there now a flood of liberal newspapers disappointed by Obama and publicly announcing their support for Mitt Romney ... in the making?