Liberal media out of touch with reality
You probably never expected The New Yorker to endorse Mitt Romney. But you might have expected that when they inevitably endorsed Obama, they would at least address a few of the arguments that have turned roughly 50 percent of American likely voters against him. If you did expect that, you are certainly disappointed today.
You will find several clever turns of phrase in the magazine’s editorial — a comparison between GOP congressional leaders and the Iranian mullahs, for example. There is also a token reference to Libya, although none to Benghazi or to the ambassador who was recently killed there.
But despite the editorial’s length, there is no room for concerns faced by ordinary Americans in the glacial Obama recovery.
The word “unemployment” does not even appear. Nor does “poverty.” Nor do important words like “trillion” or “deficit,” which might explain angst over federal government spending and the waste represented by the stimulus package, etc. (The word “debt” does appear once, in the 17th paragraph.)
...There is also no mention of energy costs. Losing the war on poverty is of no concern to them, nor the lack of jobs. They probably have no concept of why so many are dissatisfied with Obama and the Democrats. I think that being so out of touch is why it is so easy for liberals to conclude that the only logical reason for opposing Obama is race. That is an insult to half the country and to the President.