The fact remains that those who step back and consider the matter with dispassion and careful deliberation tend to favor John McCain for the GOP nomination. Today, Sen. McCain gained two major newspaper endorsements.
Yet, for all their accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership….
CONVENTIONAL wisdom among political handlers used to hold that a candidate needed to capture the political center. The last two presidential campaigns proved that wrong. The Republicans scraped out victories by pressing just enough buttons and mobilizing just enough voters. But such wins breed political polarization and deprive a president of the political capital needed to ask Americans to sacrifice in difficult times.
The antidote to such a toxic political approach is John McCain. The iconoclastic senator from Arizona has earned his reputation for straight talk by actually leveling with voters, even at significant political expense. The Globe endorses his bid in the New Hampshire Republican primary….
He also picked up the nod of the Portsmouth Herald:
U.S. Sen. John McCain will tell you the truth, even if it costs him the election.
He has a very clear-eyed view of the truth having spent his life fighting for our country and leading the U.S. Senate for the past 20 years on virtually every critical issue facing our nation.
In our view, John McCain stands head and shoulders above the rest of the Republican field and deserves the support of those voting in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary Jan. 8….
Add those to the one he got two weeks ago from The New Hampshire Union Leader:
We don’t agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.
Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.
Related Posts
This will be an interesting indicator of just how far the “power of the press” has fallen in the Internet age. With newspaper circulations and ad revenues dropping precipitously (except for USA Today), there is already ample evidence that a newspaper endorsement no longer carries the weight it once did.
If McCain finishes no better than 4th (more likely 5th or 6th) in Iowa and 3rd in NH despite the endorsements of the largest papers, I think the death knell of the newspaper industry will ring once more.
Let’s not forget that Joe Lieberman in 2004 finished 5th in New Hampshire behind Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Wesley Clark. He’s one of those politicians that the media likes but doesn’t inspire much support outside his home state.
I know it’s in Brad’s interest to keep pumping McCain in anticipation of The State’s endorsement but the reality is McCain’s fate in South Carolina will be
similar to Lieberman’s. An endorsement followed by a second tier finish and an
end to his Presidential aspirations. 2000 was his shot. Time to move on.
Endorsements by The Boston Globe and New Hampshire Union Leader in a Republican primary should probably be taken with a grain of salt after a stiff drink right before bedtime.
The red state-blue state maps from 2006 (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/) show Massachusetts as the bluest of New Endland’s blue, and New Hampshire isn’t red. Not only that, but as red states go, Iowa and Virginia are pretty purple.
So here we have endorsements for a Republican from two Democrat strongholds and two 50-50 states. What’s the thinking, that McCain will be easy to beat or that should he win, he’s so close to being a Democrat already that he’ll be easy to co-opt?
Or is that second option just my way of phrasing Bradthink? McCain might just be the least partisan of the Republicans, and thus most likely to reach across the aisle to solve a problem.
To some, that would seem a good thing, but to me, it’s a recipe for higher taxes, more work for the diligent and less labor for the shiftless.
The red dirt in Arizona, after all, has grown a painfully purple populace.
Weldon, amid all your red-state/blue-state calculations, you should pause to consider the Union Leader’s reputation. While it may have calmed down in recent years since the passing of the Loebs, its history is that of a right-wing publication. So much so that I didn’t think much of it by itself — it doesn’t enhance McCain’s reputation particularly to be endorsed by such a publication, except perhaps to folks who look at the world the way you do.
For me, to have mainstream papers with highly respected editorial boards such as Des Moines and the Globe choose McCain means a great deal. It’s sort of like having other sets of brains I respect outside my own affirm a judgment I had reached already. I know that I believe McCain is the strongest candidate in that field, but I’ve thought that so long that after a while you wonder whether it’s just habit of thought or an emotional reaction of some sort, so it’s good to get an outside read like this.
People who don’t ever question their own judgments probably don’t even know what I’m talking about, but I always have a kernel of doubt about such things. And in a world in which the polls are going against the guy who seems so obviously the top candidate, and I’m constantly pummeled by ideologues from both ends on the blog and in the real world, it’s nice to read such things as these endorsements. Sort of like hearing reasonable voices speaking in the wilderness.
And Doug, do you sit up nights thinking how you can be as contrary and unpleasant and insulting as possible in the way you express yourself on the blog? Seriously.
Weldon, amid all your red-state/blue-state calculations, you should pause to consider the Union Leader’s reputation. While it may have calmed down in recent years since the passing of the Loebs, its history is that of a right-wing publication. So much so that I didn’t think much of it by itself — it doesn’t enhance McCain’s reputation particularly to be endorsed by such a publication, except perhaps to folks who look at the world the way you do.
For me, to have mainstream papers with highly respected editorial boards such as Des Moines and the Globe choose McCain means a great deal. It’s sort of like having other sets of brains I respect outside my own affirm a judgment I had reached already. I know that I believe McCain is the strongest candidate in that field, but I’ve thought that so long that after a while you wonder whether it’s just habit of thought or an emotional reaction of some sort, so it’s good to get an outside read like this.
People who don’t ever question their own judgments probably don’t even know what I’m talking about, but I always have a kernel of doubt about such things. And in a world in which the polls are going against the guy who seems so obviously the top candidate, and I’m constantly pummeled by ideologues from both ends on the blog and in the real world, it’s nice to read such things as these endorsements. Sort of like hearing reasonable voices speaking in the wilderness.
And Doug, do you sit up nights thinking how you can be as contrary and unpleasant and insulting as possible in the way you express yourself on the blog? Seriously.
Weldon, amid all your red-state/blue-state calculations, you should pause to consider the Union Leader’s reputation. While it may have calmed down in recent years since the passing of the Loebs, its history is that of a right-wing publication. So much so that I didn’t think much of it by itself — it doesn’t enhance McCain’s reputation particularly to be endorsed by such a publication, except perhaps to folks who look at the world the way you do.
For me, to have mainstream papers with highly respected editorial boards such as Des Moines and the Globe choose McCain means a great deal. It’s sort of like having other sets of brains I respect outside my own affirm a judgment I had reached already. I know that I believe McCain is the strongest candidate in that field, but I’ve thought that so long that after a while you wonder whether it’s just habit of thought or an emotional reaction of some sort, so it’s good to get an outside read like this.
People who don’t ever question their own judgments probably don’t even know what I’m talking about, but I always have a kernel of doubt about such things. And in a world in which the polls are going against the guy who seems so obviously the top candidate, and I’m constantly pummeled by ideologues from both ends on the blog and in the real world, it’s nice to read such things as these endorsements. Sort of like hearing reasonable voices speaking in the wilderness.
And Doug, do you sit up nights thinking how you can be as contrary and unpleasant and insulting as possible in the way you express yourself on the blog? Seriously.
Weldon, amid all your red-state/blue-state calculations, you should pause to consider the Union Leader’s reputation. While it may have calmed down in recent years since the passing of the Loebs, its history is that of a right-wing publication. So much so that I didn’t think much of it by itself — it doesn’t enhance McCain’s reputation particularly to be endorsed by such a publication, except perhaps to folks who look at the world the way you do.
For me, to have mainstream papers with highly respected editorial boards such as Des Moines and the Globe choose McCain means a great deal. It’s sort of like having other sets of brains I respect outside my own affirm a judgment I had reached already. I know that I believe McCain is the strongest candidate in that field, but I’ve thought that so long that after a while you wonder whether it’s just habit of thought or an emotional reaction of some sort, so it’s good to get an outside read like this.
People who don’t ever question their own judgments probably don’t even know what I’m talking about, but I always have a kernel of doubt about such things. And in a world in which the polls are going against the guy who seems so obviously the top candidate, and I’m constantly pummeled by ideologues from both ends on the blog and in the real world, it’s nice to read such things as these endorsements. Sort of like hearing reasonable voices speaking in the wilderness.
And Doug, do you sit up nights thinking how you can be as contrary and unpleasant and insulting as possible in the way you express yourself on the blog? Seriously. If so, you should relax; you’re getting the job done.
McCain needs Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses first in order to cripple Romney enough for McCain to stage a come from behind victory. If Romney wins Iowa, then he will win New Hampshire easily.
Just like Obama holds the keys for any candidate not named Clinton, so does Huckabee. If Biden, Edwards, Dodd, or Richardson want to have any chance of being the nominee, they need Obama to stop Clinton in Iowa. If Thompson, Paul, or McCain want to have any chance of being the nominee, they need Huckabee to stop Romney in Iowa. Any of those candidates can defeat Giuliani head to head.
I addressed a few more of these winning scenarios for the GOP on my own blog yesterday, although I’m not trying to plug it on Brad’s website.
> And Doug, do you sit up nights thinking how
> you can be as contrary and unpleasant and
> insulting as possible in the way you express > yourself on the blog?
Only trying to balance out the McCain hero worship with some fact-based reality.
Which fact that I presented was most insulting? That newspaper circulation is declining at a steady rate and could be an indication of the limited power of a newspaper endorsement? That McCain will likely finish 4th or worse in Iowa and have to overcome that hurdle? Or that Joe Lieberman finished 5th in NH 4 years ago and probably carries little weight on the national level? If those are insults, I hope you don’t read the World Almanac…
The results in the next month will show whether I was on the right track or not.
I say he’s out of the race in 60 days.
If I’m wrong on McCain, I’ll admit.
And one more thing.. I lived in New Hampshire and subscribed to the Union Leader (and the Nashua Telegraph) for several years. My mother still lives in New Hampshire. My wife worked for one of the top Republican guys in the state (Tom Rath). I think I may have a more complete view of the politics in that state than you do… McCain had his chance eight years ago. It will be Romney’s state to lose.
Brad, McCain might be the strongest candidate in the field for all the reasons you cited in previous posts.
But most voters don’t make election choices the way editorial boards do. Image holds sway over substance. Charisma trumps competence.
McCain’s presence has faded, sadly. The force of his utterance has lagged.
It ain’t gonna happen.
Be my guest, Anthony. Here’s the link, folks.
And Doug, nobody was arguing with you about New Hampshire. Nobody was even arguing with you about what will happen in the future, in any part of the country. You’re the one making predictions.
The point here is the endorsements, which are well-reasoned. As I’ve said about a billion times, endorsements are about who should win, not who will win. As to who will win; I have no idea. Winning and losing, in elections, are based on an almost infinitely complex set of impulses, emotions, random incidents, and the occasional carefully reasoned thought. Whenever I run across the carefully reasoned bits, I try to call attention to them.
I didn’t find Doug’s comments contrary at all. He was merely expressing an opinion in regard to McCain’s chances. Brad has, on several occassions, expressed the idea that a paper should only endorse a candidate that really has a shot at winning. McCain is very close to being off that list. Rasmussen even shows Ron Paul closing in nationally with McCain.
What I don’t understand is all the hero worship over McCain by the national media. He’s had his share of corruption issues to deal with. Plus, he’s absolutely incorrect on the Iraq occupation issue (the surge was a huge, unnecessary waste of money). He offers nothing of substance on health care. His age is showing. And above all else he is simply not credible any more given his pandering to the right in contrast to his so-called straight-talk personna.
Doug is correct, McCain’s time was in 2000. I predict he’ll be out by the end of January. Huckabee probably wins the GOP but will lose big-time to my gal Hillary.
I doubt too many people in the GOP care about endorsements from liberal newspapers. The Union Leader endorsement in NH might be an exception.
I don’t know how much it will help McCain. He is living the last of his cat’s nine lives right now in New Hampshire which he told voters a few weeks back is a must win for him. He may do well, we shall see.
I can’t see any endorsement from a SC paper that will sway much with conservatives here.
Okay, then McCain SHOULDN’T win because:
1) His stand on immigration doesn’t align with the views of the majority of his party and some people refuse to understand that it’s not about race.
2) His age. Sorry, but he definitely has lost the bounce in his step since 2000. The pressures of the Presidency these days seem to demand more vigor.
3) He doesn’t have any executive leadership track record. If his 2000 and 2008 campaigns are any indication of his ability to staff and lead a team toward an objective, there should be some really big red flags waving by now. How could he burn through $30 million dollars and DROP in the polls from first to fourth in six months? Being a “maverick” may not be the best quality to head the Executive branch.
If you want to fill out the ideal lineup card for conservatives, it would be
Romney – Pres, Huckabee – VP, McCain – Sec Def, Giuliani – Atty General, Paul – Budget Director.
Well now there’s a shocker — bud doesn’t think Doug’s being contrary.
And bud, you’re quoting me as saying the opposite of what I have said: It is NOT about who’s going to win; it’s about who SHOULD win.
I have said that over and over and over and over to the idiots who think that an endorsement is a prediction, and say “You got it wrong” when an endorsed candidate does not win — which, contrary to ANOTHER cherished belief of the various gadflies who despise the MSM, only happens a minority of the time.
Look bud, I do this every day. I certainly know what it is that I have said, as many times as I’ve had to say it.
Is the immigration issue really as big even among most GOP voters as Doug and others claim? In some states, yes. But nationally?
Polling by the Pew Research Center last summer at the time of the immigration bill found that “one of the [immigration] bill’s primary goals – to provide a way for people who are in this country illegally to gain legal citizenship under certain conditions – wins broad and bipartisan support. Overall, 63% of the public – and nearly identical numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents – favor such an approach if illegal immigrants ‘pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs.’ …The way in which the issue is characterized has a significant effect on Republican views. While 62% of Republicans favor ‘providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship’ support declines sharply when the concept of amnesty is raised. However, even when the policy is described as ‘providing amnesty’ for illegal immigrants, about as many Republicans favor (47%) as oppose (48%) the idea.”
You can find the link to the survey here. I realize hardliners on immigration may have grown in number since last summer; but overall my feeling is that McCain’s drop has more to do with age, desire for a fresh face to head the GOP ticket, and some of what Weldon mentioned above, than with the immigration issue.
In any case, Doug, no matter their current tailored-for-GOP-primaries rhetoric, neither Romney, Giuliani, nor Huckabee, were any of them to become President, would end up pursuing a policy much different than what Bush tried to do. None of them are real hardliners on immigration at heart.
I agree, Brad, that you have said that it is about who SHOULD win.
But your definition of SHOULD is limited to mainstream candidates of the Republican or Democratic parties even if you have serious reservations about each of them (ref: Grady Patterson and Thomas Ravenal)
You’d rather hold your nose and endorse someone safe from one of the two main parties than look outside the mainstream.
You had an easy shot with Emile DeFelice to endorse someone from outside the run of the mill political realm. That would have been an endorsement that signified something.
Here’s a quote from a recent post about health care:
CAN ANYONE among those with a chance of becoming president say “single-payer?” If not, forget about serious reform of the way we pay for health care.
-Brad
… with a chance of becoming president …
Brad, you’ve already stated that Kucinich has the best health care plan, an issue you are passionate about. And yes, I know you would not support Dennis Kucinich because of other issues you disagree with him on, but to imply he doesn’t have a chance contradicts what you’re saying about focusing on candidates who SHOULD win. I think Kucinich has about as much chance of winning as McCain. Right now McCain is at least 15 points behind the leadersin all four of the early states as follows: IA – 33 (5th place); NH – 15 (2nd place); SC – 16 (5th place); FL – 21 (5th place). He’s also way behind nationally. So why does McCain not get the same treatment as Kucinch?
I think I see where we’re failing to connect, bud. You’re confusing the way I talk about a specific issue with endorsements. The point of my column Sunday (at least in part) was to try to draw that distinction, but apparently I wasn’t successful.
I would not endorse Kucinich for president — we’re agreed on that point. If nothing else, the national security disagreement is too great.
But I would like to see a single-payer plan — or, more specifically, I’d like to see the next president get elected on a sufficiently bold plan that we’d have a chance of getting some useful reform in the end, even if we don’t get everything I want.
Note that the candidate getting ELECTED is key to accomplishing my goal. Therefore, it is important that a sufficiently bold reform plan be put forward by someone with a chance of getting elected.
Do you see? It does me no good for Mr. Kucinich to endorse such a plan, because he’s not going to be elected. I mean, even if I wanted him elected, there’s nothing I could say or do that would make that happen; it’s just not in the cards.
Hence my strong desire to hear a VIABLE candidate endorse single-payer. No other combination of factors will do, for the purposes of health care reform — which was the subject at hand (and NOT endorsements).
Doug,
I’ve been hearing about the “death knell” of the newspaper industry since graduation from journalism school in the ’70s. Back then, TV was to be the executioner (after radio failed earlier expectations).
While they may continue to decline in the face of electronic media, newspapers will survive in print and digital form as an “elite” medium, where elite = literate and influential readership. So disregard or discount them at your peril.
And forget USA Today, which derives from the Gannett family host, where the true expense is hidden, as an exception to the decline of print. If you want a true commentary on the success of modern newspapering, consider instead that The Onion is our fastest-growing newspaper, and whatever that may say about our national IQ.
And, believe it or not, the survival of newspapers is something you should support, for far too many reasons to list here. For example, at the least, newspapers originate the majority of content you experience through electronic media, which invest little or nothing in news-gathering by comparison. It has always been true that, without newspapers to rip-and-read, most 24-hour news channels would be devoid of serious content if left to depend on their own reportorial resources.
It doesn’t matter, then, whether you agree or disagree with newspapers so long as you respect the commitment they represent to employing labor for the purpose of harvesting information. You may choose to malign the harvesters as leftist or rightist, as you choose, but at least they’re out in the fields on our behalf.
> While they may continue to decline in the
> face of electronic media, newspapers will
> survive in print and digital form as
> an “elite” medium, where elite = literate
> and influential readership. So disregard
> or discount them at your peril.
I am a big newspaper fan… I buy one or two every day when I’m on the road and read them thoroughly. I grew up in the Watergate era when the power of the press was peaking.
But the facts are facts. Ad revenues dropped significantly last quarter across the country. The average age of the daily newspaper reader is also increasing (to 55 years old most recently). The big three ad revenue areas (cars, homes, and jobs) will continue to move away from hardcopy print ads (as it should) and toward the internet. It’s a “perfect storm” for an industry in decline. And it’s certainly not an industry that is capable of switching gears very quickly…
How could the industry survive? More local news and sports, more investigative reporting, more movie reviews from a local (Brad suggested that to me at breakfast some months ago)… the reality is that many people probably buy The State now for the Gamecocks coverage.
Doug … I’m with you on the facts. No argument there. With few exceptions, the newspaper industry is too stodgy to adapt or compete.
But I’m convinced it will survive in a slimmed down form, for the same reasons Brad laments. (Sorry, Brad) Local news such as Gamecock football is their franchise. So long as they commit to covering the local scene, they can compete against the likes of local TV and radio.
And you’re right about improving content, but forget about that happening with corporate ownership. Provocative news threatens advertisers and alienates readers. The advocacy and consumer-report journalism of our youth disappeared for a reason, and investigative work is left to reporters to pursue on their own — after the daily grind is done.
In my experience, the abuses of family-owned newspapers were nothing in comparison to the greed of publicly traded corporations, with their emphasis on advertorial / infotainment copy, or “special advertising sections.” Nothing is more degrading to a journalist; the lines between news and ads are forever blurred. There’s no going back.
Brad’s blog is a bright spot in the future of his industry — but make no mistake, it’s his personal commitment that makes it work. His employer may be supportive, but not to the point of cutting him any slack on the daily grind.
IF any man stood 5 yrs at being tortured as McCain did and did not leave the other men behind as he could, I say he is the man! He stood for what he believed in! He believes in his fellow man and that says alot about who he is! He might say things short and sweet but that is the way he is. He doesn’t bullcrap the ideas and turn them around like Obama. He believes in this country when this country didn’t believe in him. After all he was a Nam veteran. We as the people still put down Nam veterans, they did not come back as hero, and in the eye of the people it will always be that way, but it is time to wake up Americans, believe in your country again and the men who has fought for it. Vote for McCain and be proud that you are a US citizen.Let us American be proud us the Vietnam Veterans and the other Great Veterans who has bravely fought and died for this country. Let us unite and be the great country that we are!!!!Be Proud!