Published: Friday, Jan. 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Why is this in the news section rather than being labeled an editorial?
You who whine about opinion in the paper, perhaps you should not read the
opinion pages if that bothers you.Thank goodness there is a paper
bold enough to print opinions that are not pre-approved by the federal
Our liberal or moderate posters should not be so emotional or upset by this
editorial. This is the DNews and never have proclaimed to be "fair and
balanced". I assume they read this newspaper for the same reasons I do. To
understand the other side, to get a different view point than what you find in
other outlets. Most of what was written here was an opinion, not a fact. It
was how one person views things through their life experiences and outlook.
Conservatives have such a strong dis-like for this President for a multitude of
reasons but the biggest is due to his success of seizing the conservative
freight train that was destroying this nation. Our country is in a much better
place than it was 5 years ago and is heading in the right direction and BO
deserves a lot of the credit. This author and newspaper helps remind us of
where we were at and what was destroying this country under conservative
leadership. And for that reason alone, I will continue to read it.
@ Doug10"I think the author has decided to air his personal
biases in this article."Uhhh, yeah. That's why they call it
It is not constitutionally required for all news sources to be totally unbiased,
even in their news articles. That is why I never read the New York Times, but I
fully respect their right to publish.If you do not like what the
Deseret News publishes in the “Opinion Section” of their news, then
don’t read the Deseret News. Go read the “Opinion Section” of
the Salt Lake Tribune, or another source instead. Remember,
“Opinion” means just that – it is an “Opinion” on
a newsworthy subject and not the actual news, itself.When the
Deseret News publishes an opinion piece, it does not automatically mean the
political philosophy of the editorial staff or the owner of the news source, is
in agreement with that opinion piece. Quit tying yourself into knots because
you do not agree with the decision of a news source to publish a specific Op-Ed
opinion article – it is not worth it.There, now wasn’t
that easy?Side note: GZE asked “Why is this in the news
section rather than being labeled an editorial?” GZE, it is not in the
News Section – it is in the Opinion Section.
To Ranch, FT and all the rest. I challange you to cite any newspaper, news TV
show, magazine, ect that is without any kind of bias. FTIf things are so great with Obama these last 5 years, why are so many
Democrats beginning to run away from him before election in November? The only
thing you guys have is speculation, not fact, that he prevented things from
getting worse. We have the same speculation that had McCain or Romney won,
things would be much better. What we do have though is fact. And the fact is
that after 5 years of Obama all polls show Americans see Obama as failing up to
now. If he doesn't turn it around in the next few months, and the
Republicans win the House again and maybe the Senate, he will end up with the
most unproductive 8 years of any American presidency. However, I do hope he
keeps on bombing those terriorists with the drone strikes. That is the best
thing he has done.
this is one of the best "spot - on" articles I have read from the
Deseret News and I have to applaud the writer for a job well done. I really
can't add anything more to what was said. Although I didn't quite have
the stomach to watch the hour long state of the union I did read the speech
afterwards and I have to marvel how a man can stand and shamelessly tout the
Affordable Care Act after the past three years of bald faced lies about keeping
your doctor and insurance especially knowing millions who have lost their
insurance and can't afford the state exchange offerings are probably
watching ...and throwing things at the TV!! The man in the Oval Office certainly
lives in a bubble void of any connection with reality.
re:RanchInstead of falling back on the weak "partisanship"
excuse it might help to actually tell us specially what was said in the article
that was off base. If you check the latest ABC, NBC, Wall Street Journal polls
you will see that over 60% of American agree with the writer of this article
that indeed Mr Obama is not to be trusted nor is the man competent to fix the
"Partisanship rears it's ugly head once again in the DN."Partisanship is the kindest thing you could call it. Everyone expects the DN
to be partisan. I would think the continual half truths, selective memory, and
lack of context would be the most upsetting to those not of the persuasion.How do you talk about jobs without talking about an economy that was
losing 250000 a month before he became President?How do you talk
about a recovery without acknowledging that we are pretty much at the same
unemployment figure Regan was at in his second Presidency?How do
talk about preventable embassy tragedies without acknowledging the 13 embassy
attacks in the preceding 13 years? There's one simple answer to
all those questions and it's simple partisanship. They massively dislike
this President and he has cleaned their clock twice, and FT is right, this
country is in a much better place than it was 5 years ago under conservative
(thousands of Americans killed, trillions of dollars wasted, an economy in
absolute free fall, and inequality soaring).
Actually "The one go again" the comment about a rising tide was first
used by John F Kennedy.
Why do those who love the current POTUS assume that those who do not appreciate
his blind ambition and lack of experience were in complete support of the
previous POTUS? Might not Bush be accountable for things, as they were when
Obama took control of the executive office? I believe so. While some argue
that things are better now than 5 years ago - I would ask for objective facts to
prove the point. However, can you say that things are better in the 5th year of
the current administration than they were in the fourth and fifth years of the
previous administration? If so, what are the objective facts?Is
there any argument that Obama was one of the least qualified and least
experience executives to serve in this position? A leader? Really?
No Mitt, no happy.
You're singing to the choir here. But I'm still not voting republican
Mikhail, objective facts are sometimes difficult to come by. In the short term
the unemployment rate is a quick and dirty way of looking at things. But in a
prolonged downturn like we are currently experiencing, after a while people
simply give up on looking. The method of calculating unemployment would have you
believe that if they are not looking, they must be employed. Nor does it
acknowledge the under-employed who in desperation have taken anything they can
get.A much better indicator for the current situation is the
workforce participation rate. From the late 40s to the late 60s it hovered
around 59 to 60 percent. Then for what ever reason, more women began working and
it climbed until it leveled off at 64 percent during the Carter years. Then it
rose steadily during the Reagan years, bounced around the 66 to 67 percent range
all through the Bush-Clinton-Bush years. Then in 2009 it began a steep and
steady dive and doesn't show any sign of a turn-around yet. Current rate is
62.8, a level we have not seen in 36 years. The current policies do not seem to
There You Go AgainSaint George, UTIt was actually JFK who said
all boats float in a rising tide. President Kennedy would be castigated by
present day liberals for his balanced and moderate policies. The accusation of
partisanship by the left is an attempt to deflect the highly partisan nature of
the State of the Union address. It was unvarnished campaign rhetoric. If you
want unbalanced, partisan reporting read the New York TImes and other national
news sources. Thanks DN for bringing some balance to the calculus.
VST, they moved it.
@ShugoroWell said!. As a conservative Independent (former
Republican) I agree with your assessment. I do not believe that Mitt Romney
would have brought many solutions to America's problems other than helping
the rich get richer. President Obama promoted healthcare reform which is so
badly needed in America with our hopelessly broken healthcare system. At least
he had the compassion to eliminate the insidious prohibition of folks with
pre-existing conditions from being able to get insurance. Kudos to him for
that! It appears we need to clean house in Washington, starting with the
extremists in both parties and try to get good men and women who will work with
integrity and collaboration to find better solutions to America's problems.
bungalow - How can you say that Obama cut the deficit? He is the
ONLY president to have 1 billion dollar deficits - which he did 4 years. He
increased both the deficit and the debt. Now, the deficit is going down, but
not at the levels of Bush.
@Mike Richards"Obama has never run a business."Hoover
and Bush were business owners, how'd that work out for the nation? @Chris B"it soared to over 11%"Unemployment
never got to 11% under Obama, it peaked at around 10.0%.
Max,How about the auto industry bailout?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments