The column began with this sentence:
The lead story on the front page Wednesday dealt with Mitt Romney’s assertion – secretly taped – that many Americans have a sense of entitlement.
Amen Brother Mitt.
Then he went on to talk about entitlement, as you’ll see.
It was a column from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by Bill McClellan, saved for me by my 98-year old mother-in-law. She said she’d thought I’d be interested.
Not only did I like it but it made me wonder (once again) why I never read a Plain Dealer columnist take on big shots as McClellan does. Why are PD columnists so feeble, so unwilling to take on obvious big targets? They ignore the obvious with regularity. As if they’re told, “Leave those guys alone.”
McClellan takes on the present owner of the St. Louis Rams. Another billionaire, of course. NFL owner Stan Kroenke seeks the same public welfare Browns’ owner Jimmy Haslam wants here. Kroenke is on Forbes magazine’s richest at $4 billion and married to a Wal-Mart kin. Haslam made the list, too.
Here’s how McClellan puts it succinctly:
Then there’s Stan Kroenke. Our current situation with him is so ludicrous it’s hard to take seriously. Does one of the richest men in the world really think that taxpayers out to fork over $700 million to improve a stadium we’re still paying for?
In Cleveland’s Plain Dealerland, it isn’t questioned.
He goes on:
I understand that our public officials signed a lease that puts Kroenke in that position, but come on Stan. If you want to stay, stay. If you want to move, move. But don’t expect any more public money. We’re tapped out.
McClellan ends with this:
Romney is speaking truth to power with his talk about a sense of entitlement. He just might have his sight set on the wrong people.
No doubt about that.
McClellan also spanks Bill DeWitt, St. Louis Cards owner, for his sense of entitlement to public funds.
It’s the nature of these wealthy men. What is it they drink that makes them feel so entitled?
That brings me to the mealy-mouth, pathetic Plain Dealer endorsement of President Barack Obama for re-election. They knew they had to do it. It apparently gave them indigestion.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorsed Obama as did the PD.
But check the difference.
FoUr years ago, in endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president, we noted his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure. He was unproven, but we found him to be presidential, in all that that word implies.
In that, we have not been disappointed. This is a serious man. And now he is a proven leader. He has earned a second term.”
More than half way through the editorial it gets to Mitt Romney:
As to Mr. Romney, we are puzzled. Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? The one who said of himself, in 2002, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone who is moderate and … my views are progressive.”
Or is it the Mitt Romney who posed as a ‘severely conservative’ primary candidate? Is it the Mitt Romney who said in May that 47 percent of Americans are moochers or the one who said last week that’s not what he believes?
Romney apparently will say anything that will help him win an election.
It went on to conclude that if more Americans were paying attention, “This election would not be close. Barack Obama would win going away, at least 53 to 47, perhaps even 99 to 1.”
Even Ted Diadiun, the Plain Dealer’s chief official apologist, labeled the PD editorial endorsing Obama as “lukewarm.” Warm as spit I’d say.
… Our endorsement this year comes with less enthusiasm or optimism,” said the editorial. It goes on to say that Obama’s actions “left us sorely tempted to endorse Gov. Romney this fall. Like President Obama, he is a man of public achievement and private honor.
I find those qualities in Romney difficult to recognize. The PD has better insight or eyesight I imagine.
Vote for the many, not the privileged, the entitled. Vote Obama.
October 30th, 2012