Saturday, October 18, 2008

The Newspaper Endorsements Are Rolling Out With Obama As the Clear Choice

TW: Amidst the anti-intellectual and bigoted bile featured front and center by the Republicans today, it becomes refreshing to read some key US newspapers attempt to frame the debate in more rational terms. The value of newspaper endorsements has been debated for decades. I do not know how much value they have, I do believe some of their comments are noteworthy. I also am intrigued when perennially solid Republican (or Democratic) leaning newspapers change their allegiance. The big switch thus far has been the Chicago Tribune. Yes the Tribune is Obama's hometown paper, but those of us living in Chicago know the Tribune's editorial board epitomizes the Republican establishment going back over a hundred years and furthermore has not been particularly supportive of Obama.

However, for the first time in its 164 year history the Tribune has endorsed a Democrat. That means they chose Goldwater over LBJ, Hoover over FDR, Landon over FDR, Wilkie and Dewey over FDR (during wartime), Nixon over JFK etc. Given those choices, arguably the Tribune's judgment is hugely suspect but better late than never. Below are excerpts from the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times and the Wash. Post endorsements.

Some other non-left leaning papers are choosing Barack Hussein Obama as well including the Salt Lake Tribune (huh?http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10750163)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875479

From WaPo:
"The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president...But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief"

From Chicago Tribune:
"On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose...[when Obama first announced we hoped] he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that...

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way...It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages. McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect...He builds consensus...Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

From the LA Time:
"We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,5198206.story

No comments: