Seattle Times endorses President Obama for re-election

In an editorial laced with expressions of disappointment about President Obama’s first term, the Seattle Times has, nonetheless, called for the re-election of the President.

The editorial looks at a wide range of policy areas, gives kudos to the President on some, criticizes his record on others, and sees potential for more progress in a second term. It also contrasts the President’s record with policies outlined by Romney.

On foreign affairs, the Seattle Times wishes that President Obama had moved more quickly in getting American forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But it praises the President’s handling of newer crises:

He wisely limited the U.S. commitment in Libya and kept out of Syria despite the hectoring of U.S. Sen. John McCain. He is right not to let Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talk him into an attack on Iran.

On these matters, Republican nominee Mitt Romney is at his worst, parading his eagerness to use force. Romney has no experience in foreign affairs, and it shows.

Regarding America’s financial system, the Seattle Times criticizes Obama for not passing “a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act, which safeguarded the financial system from 1933 to 1999.” In addition, the editorial writers wish that Obama had ended the “too big to fail” policy toward the country’s largest banks. However, the editorial also notes that Mitt Romney would do none of these things, while Obama still could.

In the realm of education, the editorial praises President Obama, saying he deservescredit for defending charter schools and other education reforms within the Democratic Party.”

The editorial says that President Obama has been disappointing on health care [!], and in his efforts at reducing partisanship[?]. [This writer would disagree with those points, but it’s not my editorial, after all.]

However, even though there’s a lot of criticism in the editorial [an effort to prove that the Seattle Times is balanced, perhaps?], the bottom line is this:

Obama’s presidency has been disappointing, but he still has promise. Romney would be too much of a gamble.