"Obama unworthy commander-in-chief"

I think it's fair to say that the editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal have left no room for misinterpretation in their endorsement of Mitt Romney. More specifically, in their passionate endorsement of the end of the Presidency of Barack Obama.

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

I can't honestly say that I've never seen anything like that, because that's not an uncommon level of vitriol for internet commentary. But it's quite something to see from a major newspaper.

I don't disagree with a word of it, of course...

Herald endorses Brown, sun rises in east...

There seem to be some people excited about this endorsement of Scott Brown by the Boston Herald:

If you love what’s going on in Washington, well, then by all means vote for Martha Coakley. She’s a perfectly nice person, and she won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in the balance of power in Washington.

But if you’re not happy with the status quo, if you think the way business is being conducted on Capitol Hill today is a disgrace and an affront to taxpayers, then you probably agree it’s time for a change.

Scott Brown can single-handedly deliver on that kind of change and the Herald is pleased to endorse his candidacy in the race for U.S. Senate.

It's nice, I suppose, but essentially meaningless. The Herald's not the Globe. This is a "dog bites man" story, as will be the Globe's eventual and inevitable endorsement of Coakley. It doesn't hurt anything, but it doesn't help anything, either. The only possible endorsement which could impact this race at all would be if the Globe endorsed Brown, which isn't going to happen.