The Des Moines Register has the highest circulation of any newspaper in Iowa, one of the all important swing states in this election. For over forty years, the newspaper has been staunchly loyal to the Democrat party in the issues they champion and the candidates they support.
The Register has supported the Democrat nominee in eleven of the last twelve presidential races. The last time they came out in support of a Republican presidential nominee, it was forty years ago.
Des Moines Regsiter Presidential Endorsements:
• 2008: Barack Obama (D) – won
• 2004: John Kerry (D) – lost
• 2000: Al Gore (D) – lost
• 1996: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1988: Michael Dukakis (D) – lost
• 1984: Walter Mondale (D) – lost
• 1980: Jimmy Carter (D) – lost
• 1976: Jimmy Carter (D) – won
• 1972: Richard Nixon (R) – won
• 1968: Hubert Humphrey (D) – lost
• 1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (D) – won
source: Des Moines Register
So imagine the shock and dismay felt throughout the Obama campaign when they found out that a loyal and influential Democrat newspaper such as the Des Moines Register has turned its back on Obama in asking it’s readers to give him another four years!!!
It shows you just how dismal this presidency has been when the Des Moines Register felt compelled to break 40 years of tradition in backing Democrat presidential candidates to support Mitt Romney for president.
The case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the readThe case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the read as The Register tells it’s readers they endores Romney because he offers a fresh economic vision.
The endorsement is well worth the read, but if a picture is worth a thousand words, these two pictures from Thursday’s front page shows the choice we have and the stark contrast between the two candidates in vivid detail.
One of the more interesting moments of last night’s presidential debate was a question from an audience member about the discrepancy between women’s salaries and men’s salaries in America.
Barack Obama portrayed himself as an advocate for equal pay, but Obama’s actions speak far louder than words he offered in the debate:
According to a report published by the Free Beacon in April, the 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees — $60,000 compared to $71,000.
And in 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.
Romney detailed his professional history, recruiting women into positions of power during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. He further pointed out the economic suffering women have endured under Obama, including the loss of 580,000 jobs among women and 3.5 million women in poverty.
source: The Daily Caller
If Barack Obama has been in charge of work environments where his female staffers in the Senate were paid 17% less than his male staffers and where his female staffers in the White House are being paid 18% less than their male coworkers, how can Obama try to sell himself as a champion of equal pay?
Beyond the glaring discrepancy in how Obama chooses to pay his female staffers, perhaps even more troubling are the reports of an Obama White House that has been described by members of his female staff as being a “hostile environment” towards women, as seen graphically in this famous photo showing the anger of the senior women in the White House women who called a meeting to discuss their workplace grievances:
Through the work environments he himself has created, Obama has absolutely no credibility when it comes to speaking about the discrepancy in pay and in respect women face in the workplace. When Obama tells America that women deserve equal pay and equal respect in the workplace, it’s a case of do as I say, not as I do.