Before I turn my attention completely to writing for Sunday’s paper, I’ll respond briefly to some of the comments offered this morning with regard to our McCain endorsement. I’ll start with something Phillip said (actually, his was the last comment when I started this response; several others have come in since then, but I’ll have to read them later):
P.S. Since Editor and Publisher’s latest count has not included the State, the State now becomes the 50th newspaper in the US to endorse McCain. 127 have endorsed Obama. In 2004 the count was virtually even between Kerry and Bush, and now nearly 30 papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed Obama, whereas only a handful that endorsed Kerry 2004 have endorsed McCain. Again, more evidence that Obama’s appeal is broader across party and ideological lines and holds the greater promise of bipartisan leadership and unity.
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 24, 2008 9:10:17 AM
I should have added "the State’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge that reality notwithstanding" to that last sentence.
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 24, 2008 9:12:46 AM
Phillip, I don’t understand why you would say that last part. Scroll to the lower part of this original post. The "reality" you say we "stubbornly refuse to acknowledge" is something I have cited over and over. It’s THE biggest reason why we strongly preferred Obama over Hillary Clinton. It’s what we mean in the endorsement you read today when we say, "Barack Obama is an inspiring and even transformational figure." What did you think that referred to?
And yes, I’m perfectly aware that most newspapers are endorsing Obama. In the rough draft of the editorial (before I cut it down to fit the space awaiting it on the Sunday page), I wrote "Like the many newspapers that have endorsed him, we, too, find him to be an inspiring…" But that was one of the more superfluous lines among the many that had to go in cutting out four inches from the piece. What other newspapers are doing is neither here nor there.
I do find it amusing that someone commenting on the previous post thinks it would have been more "courageous" to endorse Obama. Hardly. Going along with the crowd, particularly when they’re lining up behind someone you like very much, and who you fully believe is going to WIN, is the path of least resistance. Just think of all the very nice people, people whom I would love to please, who would be singing our praises now, while a few trolls under the bridge mutter inaudibly about how they knew we were "socialists" all along, and what do you expect from the "liberal media." We’d be praised for being "bold," for making an "historic break with the past," etc. Never mind that there would be nothing bold about it; it would just feel that way to a lot of people.
Add to this the fact that I gave up something very tangible and palpable, to me. Ever since I became editorial page editor in 1997, I have longed for the day that I could break the pattern of endorsing Republicans for president, if only because in some people’s minds, that makes us a "Republican newspaper," and I find it deeply distasteful to be called such names. Yes, I have been able to comfort myself by pointing to the substantial, documented falsehood of the label — most notably the fact that if you consider all of our endorsements (and we spend vastly more of our time on state and local races than we do on the presidential), more than half of them are for Democrats. But people attach an inordinate amount of importance to the presidential endorsement — so many people don’t pay attention to anything else — and there we have been trapped. We like SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats, not the national kind. People like John Kerry and even Al Gore, in running for national office, define themselves in ways that put them far to the left of the consensus of our editorial board, which is generally reflective of the political center in our state. (Ironically, in Gore’s case, he had earlier been a far more centrist politician, to the point that I enthusiastically supported an endorsement of him when he ran for the Senate in Tennessee.)
But Obama presented the chance I had awaited for so long. Here was a Democrat we could happily endorse, something we unquestionable would have done had he been up against Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee — and certainly if he’d been facing the current president (something he likes to pretend he’s doing as we speak).
But he was up against the one Republican who happens to be the national political figure I respect and admire most, and have wanted to see in the White House for at least a decade. So his timing couldn’t have been worse.
Now, as to those of you who find it unthinkable that we didn’t write about the current economic situation, or that we DID spend a long paragraph on the Colombian Free Trade agreement, let me see if I can help you understand: First, I don’t give either candidate a leg up on the economic crisis. I haven’t been impressed that either of them has a better idea than I do of what to do going forward. Both of them backed the $700 billion rescue plan, and while I think they were right to do so, I just haven’t seen much to jump up and down about either way on this. Frankly, I worry that neither of them is up to the challenge, but that worry is poorly defined in my own mind. While economic policy was discussed in our board debate of this endorsement, it did not occur in a way that caused us to coalesce around a position. In other words, I could have spent precious words on the economy, but it would have been a digression from the points that actually contributed to our endorsement, and everyone would have found it unhelpful. Yes, I understand that people who favor Obama are somewhat more eager to discuss the economy than those of us who end up where I do on the question. Democrats love talking about the economy. And they will. But we endorsed McCain neither because of nor in spite of the candidates’ positions on the economy.
On the contrary, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement — which required a certain number of words even to explain to the reader, since it’s gained so little attention — had the virtue of being a sort of microcosmic way of explaining the sort of differences between the candidates that DID contribute to our endorsement. We were able to tell readers something they didn’t know, to examine the contrast between the candidates in terms of a subject that hasn’t been done to death. And for me, the moment when that came up in the third debate was a critical moment, a sort of epiphany, one in which my preference for McCain over Obama was clarified. As an explanation of an important difference between the candidate, one that bears upon their governing philosophies with regard to the global economy and their relative devotion to party orthodoxies, the portion of the editorial dealing with Colombian trade was far more explanatory than spending a comparable number of words rehashing the economic crisis, only to say in the end that on that issue, for us, it’s a wash.
If you haven’t figured this out about me and my leadership of the editorial board, let me state it overtly now: I see little point in telling you things you already know. To the extent that I am able, I wish to ADD to the conversation, not parrot what others are saying. Hence this countercultural blog, in which I fight against the tide of the Blogosphere as a place where polar opposites shout at each other. Similarly, my exploration of Colombian trade as opposed to platitudes on the economy sought to explore uncovered ground, to give people something additional to think about.
As for whether I should have cut something out of the editorial to make room for a digression about Sarah Palin (the omission of which Phillip found to be "astonishing" and "shoddy journalism") — well, I can perfectly understand why someone who thinks we should have endorsed Obama would want to bring that up. But since Sarah Palin did NOT contribute to the decision to endorse McCain, it’s hard for me to see why I would bring that up, explore the problems that she brings to the ticket, and then explain why we would endorse McCain anyway for those of you who don’t get it (and even after doing that at the expense of not giving you the reasons why we did endorse McCain, those of you who disagree would remain unsatisfied). Besides, it would have been a departure to say we’re endorsing someone because of, or in spite of, the vice presidential pick. I can’t think of when we’ve done that before (if you can, please point it out). Sarah Palin looms very large in the minds of two sets of people — the conservative Republican base that loves her, and the people who despise her and see her as sufficient reason NOT to vote for McCain. We are in neither category.
And by "we," I mean the official position that we ended up with as a board. As I write this, Warren Bolton is working (at my behest) on his column for Sunday expressing his dissenting opinion. He may explore the economy or go into the failings of Sarah Palin at length. I don’t know. But a column saying we SHOULD have endorsed Obama seems to me like a better part of the overall package in which to explore those avenues. The endorsement of McCain explores one part of the overall subject. Warren’s column explores another. My column — which I need to go write — will explore yet another.
In the end, the overall goal is to provoke thought — hopefully, thoughts you might not otherwise have had — among our readers regarding the presidential election. That’s what we strive for.
Related Posts
What the newspaper should have explored was the real issues and real differences, instead of Sarah Palin’s shoes, and Hillar Clinton’s three pants suits at $6,000 each.
Some of the topics were just too distasteful for most editors to face, because they are liberal and want so much to elect a non-white, non-male as President.
* Obama’s lack of accomplishment in work, school, or in even having no job at all for 6 years.
* Is Obama a U.S. citizen? He has still failed to produce a Birth Certificate to the federal court, missing 2 deadlines in 8 weeks.
* Why are ALL of Obama’s close associates, friends and advisors such radicals – black racists, communists, terrorists, Jew-haters, supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Quaeda?
* What social legislation will Obama support and sign if passed by the radicals like Pelosi, Reid and Schumer?
Here is a list of bills they have already filed, that Obama has said he supports:
* late-term abortion
* abolishing parental notification and consent
* outlawing private healthcare plans
* outlaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns
* outlaw handguns
* totally disarm all inner-city residents (black people)
* punitive taxes on many cars and trucks
The media is afraid to ask, let alone report.
No surprises today on the endorsement. Even your response to the feedback and defensiveness of your position isn’t a surprise. John McCain 8 years ago is not the John McCain today. In fact, his use of those that defiled him 8 years ago in order to try and win this election exemplifies the new McCain. Palin as VP choice exemplifies the new McCain. Robocalls and terrorist allegations of the opponent exemplify the new McCain. A 90% Bush voting record exemplifies the new McCain. Reversing course on his own immigration legislation exemplifies the new McCain. Eight years ago I would have voted for him. Character and honor matter to me. I will not today.
No one who votes for Obama or Clinton cares about character and honor.
OK, Brad, a good post above. We just have to agree to disagree. I’ll quit hassling you. (I just feel that at heart you’re a rational guy…your support for good health care plans and public education show that, that’s why I get a little frustrated.)
I will take teensy-weensy issue with the statement that Palin looms large only to the conservatives who love her and people who despise her. I think there’s a huge number of people who are fundamentally centrist who find that this was an irresponsible pick…Powell would be an example of these folks. In any other year it would be less of an issue but to be blunt with the main candidate on that ticket being the potentially oldest President ever, it has to be very central to voters’ consideration. The endorsement owed us at least an explanation of why it would be OK to have Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from being leader of the free world.
Lastly, while Joe—no, not the Plumber, but Joe the lonely Democrat-for-McCain Lieberman is out there by his lonesome, the honor roll of Republicans crossing over to support Obama is growing into a torrential flood. William Weld is the latest.
Your endorsement of McCain also did not mention that his healthcare plan does not match yours and that he strongly supports vouchers while you do not.
Readers of this blog may know that but you would think an endorsement would list the major policies areas where McCain’s policies are different from the board’s. That would allow the reader to better understand where The State’s priorities are focused — i.e. the war and nothing but the war.
Lee you are full of propoganda today. At no point has he advocated outlawing private healthcare. In fact it is the cornerstone of his health plan. Read his record and policy statements on guns. They aren’t as you indicate. I could debate point by point abortion, notification, taxes etc. as well. But it is useless. Others now view your statements for what they are. And that is fiction. You would present your view point in a more convincing manner were you to use the actual truth and facts.
Obama’s health care advisor is Harold Ickes, who ran Hillary Clinton’ secret healthcare taskforce.
Ickes is a socialist. His parents were unrepentent Stalinists.
Ickes still has the same objective – total destruction of private medicine, so that it cannot be easily restored by a new Congress or President. This time, he and Obama just intend to avoid Hillary’s mistake of trying to do in one fell swoop, but to phase it in over 4 years.
The endorsement pleasantly surprised me, Brad, though I should have had sense enough to see it coming.
Uncle Weldon has offered up a litle poesy he feels fits the occasion:
The State’s endorsement of John McCain
May not be an exclamation point at the end of a long campaign,
But at least it’s not a Colin.
Y’all did peachy keen endorsing McCain, Brad, and Krauthammer’s endorsement is a masterpiece that should be required reading for voter registration.
DOUG! read the flippin’ endorsement, Dude! “On some issues, such as health care, we prefer his proposals to Sen. McCain’s.”
First, I have to take grief for failing (IN AN 11-INCH ENDORSEMENT) to mention several issues, then I gotta take grief for “not” mentioning one that I DID?!?!?
Ay-ay-ay, compadre…
Brad, as committed Democratic partisan, I found the paper’s endorsement neither surprising nor offensive. It was well-reasoned and well-presented – as I would have expected it to be. While I disagree with your choice, I do have to say that your endorsement is much more clear, concise and coherent than many of the others I’ve read from other papers this week.
It’s evident that with the exception of government restructuring and support for public education, the issue that most concerns you and the editorial board is national security. If that were my top national issue – and had I not been completely shocked by the dishonest and dishonorable campaign McCain has run since the summer – I would at least tolerate if not support a McCain presidency, and I fully understand why you do.
Don’t count me among those saying you didn’t mention enough issues in the endorsement – it is a year too late for that.
My gripe is the sorry level of news coverages, especially by print media, which has the time to do a thorough job, if they want to. With Obama, they didn’t want to.
Brad,
Saying you “prefer” Obama’s plan over McCain’s doesn’t exactly send the message that McCain’s plan is 100% in opposition to your single payer plan. An uniformed reader might think it’s just a matter of minor details. McCain’s plan is 180 degrees different on a topic you frequently write about as critical. Same for vouchers.
You endorsed the war over everything else.
THANK you, Tim. And you, too, Phillip.
I’d rather have understanding words from y’all than “rah-rah” words from someone just glad we endorsed McCain.
Understanding, after all, is my goal here. That, and thought provocation…
Not quite the endorsement I would expect, more like an explanation of why you are doing what you are doing??? There are plenty of positive aspects of both McCain and Palin that anyone could expound upon and be accurate.
As for bolton, who would thought???
Re: doug & the constitution
Mr. O has already demonstrated his defference to the constitution by the following:
-failure to provide a federal court documentation to show compliance per Article II.
-his proposed redistribution of income violates the Fourth Amendment.
Thank you, Brad. You thank the people who disagree with you, and spit on the people who applaud you.
May the building collapse on your feeble head.
The endorsement and the platitudes from the supporters show just the comprehension of facts by the McCain camp. tomfliesby the bluebunny calls taxes a re-distribution of wealth. It’s called paying for a military, the Iraq war (justified or not it has to be paid for), infrastructure, homeland security etc. No one is writing checks to those that make less than $250K in Obama’s plan no matter what McCain is spouting in his ads. As for Lee’s bigotted statements, enough said. Brad, you sure have some crew following behind your pied piping.
Sarah Palin looms very large in the minds of two sets of people — the conservative Republican base that loves her, and the people who despise her and see her as sufficient reason NOT to vote for McCain. We are in neither category.
-Brad
This is stunning, shocking, alarming, troubling. Most people in the middle, and even quite a few on the right found the Palin pick disturbing. Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker come to mind. Brad, I’ve tried to be diplomatic on this endorsement business but this is just plain stupid. How on earth could you ignore the Palin decision. I understand that historically a VP pick is not a big factor. But this in this election it is VERY important. The only other VP choice that is even remotely close to being a factor of this magnitude is Dan Quayle. Frankly he was only marginally qualified to be president but the health and age of Bush senior were far less a concern then. And even Quayle, in hindsight, was not this horrible. The Palin pick was EXTREMELY important. To simply blow it off like this is, well, the English language just does not have sufficient words to describe it.
What did “spread the wealth” mean, then, Tim C, when Obama said it? What of co-opting 401-K’s to bolster Social Security?
And when you write “No one is writing checks to those that make less than $250K in Obama’s plan,” you’re may not realize you’re telling a lie, but you are. The IRS already refunds credits to some tax filers who pay nothing, and Obama won’t be decreasing the number of filers for whom that occurs.
Man, if you’re gonna preach, locate a few facts before you do and try to stick to them. I doubt two people who post here would describe themselves as followers of Brad, much less him as a pied piper.
Brad — I would assume that you agree more with Barack Obama on education issues, as well. Man, John McCain was wailing away on the voucher issue during that last debate.
Similarly, my exploration of Colombian trade as opposed to platitudes on the economy sought to explore uncovered ground, to give people something additional to think about.
-Brad
I guess you have to say something to defend this. But really Brad, at the end of the day whatever is done with the Colombian agreement is not going to have much impact on this country. It’s a very small thing in impact yet it’s very complex. I probably come close to agreeing with McCain on this but Obama makes a good case too. I’d be interested to see how many other endorsements mentioned the Colombian agreement.
“Most people in the middle, and even quite a few on the right found the Palin pick disturbing.”
Really, bud? You talked to “most people in the middle” while you were standing on the street corner holding up your “Pound Palin– Pray to Obama” sign?
And, if Palin is a problem, “the only other VP choice that is even remotely close to being a factor of this magnitude” is not Dan Quayle. By God, Dan Quayle was ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Eagleton sent George McGovern 1,000 percent into the electoral toilet.
Making up BS out of whole cloth won’t make a credible case, bud. Brad’s right: It’s the left who’s concerned about Palin, because she’s a female candidate who doesn’t toe the liberal line. She scares you. She may just show you how far out of the mainstream the loony left really is.
Seizing another’s assets for the expressed purpose of “spreading the wealth” is not taxation.
pm, I guess when you say it’s the left concerned about Palin you mean famous lefties like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, William Weld, George Will, William Milliken, shall I go on?
Just wait till after the election. The list of conservatives who will admit the Palin pick was a mistake will mushroom.
You want “out of the mainstream”? Mainstream may not be what you think it is come Nov. 4.
Kathleen Parker also thinks McCain picked Palin, and a lot of the base likes her, because she’s hot. I think Kathleen has enough of a point that I put the piece on the Sunday op-ed page.
Of course, that puts Kathleen in the same boat as John Boy and Billy. I have to admit I caught part of their "Election Guide" this morning — which was everything you might think it would be. Anyway, they said rather than pulling in women who voted for Hillary, Palin appealed instead to a key part of the GOP base — horny, middle-aged men.
bud, you miss the point on the Colombian free trade thing: It speaks to an important difference between them on the global economy, and just as importantly, it points to a really disturbing lack of independence of thought on Obama’s part. There is NO reason to oppose that treaty other than the fact that Big Labor demands that Democrats do so. Opposing it doesn’t even make sense as protectionism, since the U.S. already takes Colombian goods duty-free; this would just open up Colombia to U.S. goods. The excuse Obama offered for his opposition — straight from the rigid labor talking points — is grossly out of date and therefore patently untrue, as Nicholas Kristof (who I assure you will be voting for the Democratic ticket, so he’s hardly a biased witness) so clearly explained months ago. From his April column:
The more I thought about how WRONG Obama was about this, and then put it together with what I found to be his startling lack of independence from doctrine on judicial appointments (I still haven’t quite gotten over a Harvard trained attorney equating the INFERRED right to privacy with the EXPRESSED right to free speech), the more I became clear as to my preference for McCain in these last days.
If you follow what I’m saying about those two issues, added to my preference to McCain on national security, then you follow the reasoning behind our endorsement. For me (although certainly not for you, I understand that), the national security issue is a slam-dunk. These other reasons required slightly more explanation, and I’m sorry if I didn’t do that adequately in the 11-inch endorsement.
And penultimo, you are completely right; I neglected you terribly above. Your comments on the previous post were kind, thoughtful and generous, and I am very grateful. Your kind words just weren’t in front of me when I was saying those nice things about Phillip and Tim above.
I previously posted names of members of various socialist groups inside the US Congress, all Democrats.
Obama was a member of a socialist political party in Chicago the New Party, which was a local offshoot of the Democratic Socialists for America.
Many in Chicago remembered Obama making speeches for the socialist candidates, but the Obama 2008 campaign claimed this was all untrue.
Well, the New Party had a newspaper, and many issues contain Barack Obama.
The party’s Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying “these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
No, Phillip, I mean famous lefties like you, Randy and especially bud.
I myself have said Palin looked more attractive (as a candidate) at first than she has in the long run. The MSM ambushed her. Had they ambushed Biden, or merely reported the number of lies he told in the Palin debate accurately and with emphasis, he wouldn’t have stood up to the scrutiny, either.
But I don’t see her as a deal breaker, though I can understand how some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans would. She’s an independent force with a Republican label, not a party-line girl, even moreso than McCain. The prospect of a POTUS and VP fighting the Republican mainstream probably displeases some Republicans.
But, for me, her position as a genuine Washington outsider, together with her wide-eyed, righteous scrappiness, seems a real strength to me. McCain has been there forever; Palin is new to the Beltway and immersed in the real world. It’s a genuinely complimentary ticket.
Who better to challenge the status quo than someone who hasn’t been a part of it?
This just in: the speaker of Iran’s parliament has endorsed Obama.
So how does Palin really matter?
How very disappointing. Not the choice itself but the total B.S. explanation. This endorsement reads of the means to justify the end to satify the demands of a dwindling few.
The weakest of examples were chosen to back a real stretch of the imagination mistakenly called a rationale. The topics that were called the deciding factors (CAFTA, litmus test of judges) means absolutely zero to the rising number of unemployed, uninsured and new impoverished citizens of this state and the rest of this country. We are facing economic and global challenges not seen by this country in nearly 100 years and all this editorial board can say is “at least McCain will pick judges we might like”.
Clearly cherry-picking the points to support the pre-ordained, and the mea culpa (someone explain this to Lee) certainly shows.
Unpopular and out of touch. Readership down much?
“the more I became clear as to my preference for McCain in these last days.”
Brad, I’m still not clear how you think McCain promising to appoint “strict constructionist” isn’t him promising to use a litmus test. If strict constructionist doesn’t imply anti-R.v.W…. what exactly does it imply, and why does the religious right (who in general don’t know anything about supreme court theory) love hearing it so much?
It is interesting that in your endorsement for McCain you failed to mention the scurrilous, fear-mongering campaign he has waged. They are engaging in a win at any cost campaign that is dangerous and harmful to this country and you completely ignored it.
And do you really think Palin is qualified to be President of the United States. Really? This is obviously a case of the majority of the editorial board being blinded by dogma.
Hey, Frank. Did you read all of the previous before posting that? Because I believe your points have been addressed.
It’s really interesting that some folks seem to think that an endorsement of McCain should be all about how awful Sarah Palin is, and how nasty the McCain campaign has been (in their estimation), and several choruses of “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”
One wonders why they think those would be the things that a person endorsing McCain should discuss. Since none of those things bore on the endorsement, one has to wonder why.
To help you understand, it would be like doing an endorsement of Obama that dwelt upon Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and the fact that he was so appalling wrong about the surge. Since I find it easy to imagine endorsing Obama — after all, I recently did so — I know that I would have too many positive things to say about him to bother dwelling on the things that worry me about him.
And folks, although you may have trouble understanding this, it’s the same with endorsing McCain.
I suppose I have an advantage over you people who despise McCain so much — and over those of you who despise Obama so much. I can see the good in both men, and present the argument for either of them, honestly and gladly. I’m sorry that too many of y’all seem as though you’d be incapable of that. The fact that you are that way, that you have allowed the polarization of America to become so much a part of how you think, is a very great tragedy for our country.
Wow.
I still don’t get why the editors at The State agonize and agitate so much about political endorsements…and I REALLY don’t get why so many other folks are so interested in and enthralled by these endorsements.
I mean, the way I see it this endorsement thing at The State is largely about bit players in a small market within a slowly dying part of the legacy media having a committee meeting and then giving me their unsolicited opinion about something we don’t see eye to eye on anyway.
What is UP with that? Why should I care?
David
Brad:
Let me see if I understand this: During the 2000 GOP primary you geniuses endorsed George Bush over John McCain. Now, eight years later, after your chosen one has managed to mangle and otherwise destroy everything he touched, you endorse Bush III! It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For heaven’s sake, when will you Faúx News parrots ever learn? Bush, aside from being a draft dodger, let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora, then he screwed the troops in Afghanistan by going to Iraq. Now you endorse the guy that thinks that all of those lunatic moves were a good idea? This is not to mention the doubling of the national debt in eight years and destroying our economy! I would pose the question; “What were you thinking,” but it is patently obvious that thinking is not something that happens at your newspaper.
By the way, I worked for McCain in the 2000 primary but don’t even recognize the demagogue that is running this year. Gary, Columbia, SC
Dear Brad,
Thank you for your response. The reason the Palin issue is germane is that Palin could very well be President of the United States. That is a specific, tangible, an inseparable element of the McCain ticket. To endorse McCain is to endorse the possibility Palin becoming president. By the way, neither Wright nor Avery are on the ticket.
I find it rather disturbing that you would find my objection of the scurrilous attacks by the McCain as evidence of “despising McCain.”
I do find it rather amusing when you use “you people” – oh we the weak-minded “incapable” who can’t penetrate such lofty insight as the editorial board has provided us today.
I don’t despise McCain. I despise the tactics. And the decisions to use those tactics should figure into any endorsement.
Regarding polarization: The polarization of America has been largely engineered by the Atwaters, Rollins, Roves, and robocallers of the right. Polarization it has been a primary tenet of this crowd. Divide and conquer.
Brad –
You also cleverly avoided any mention of McCain’s brother Joe and his recent antics: calling 911 and using vulgar language just because he was stuck in traffic near his home in the DC area. What kind of temperament does that show, huh? Two peas in an angry pod, no?
I note too that this is the same brother who called two specific counties in Northern Virginia “communist country”. He’s probably right, but certainly rude and full of anger. Do we really want that in a presidential brother? I realize that Billy Carter and Roger Clinton set pretty high standards, but you seem willing to lower them much too much.
Are you not curious that his name is Joe, and we all know that the plumber guy is not really Joe. You didn’t mention that either.
Finally, you failed to compare Joe to Obama’s long lost brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama, a “beautiful boy with a rounded head” who lives an environmentally responsible lifestyle in Kenya. Has he ever called 911 and used vulgar language when stuck in traffic? Nope, not even once.
You have never endorsed an Onyango, said kind words about an Onyango, or even acknowledge that they exist. I’ve always suspected that The State has something against the Onyangos, and this proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
You may pass this on to Warren for use in his column.
Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin’ around
You should be made
To wear earphones
Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
If Warren Bolton only understood how Barack Obama was connected to the banks which finance the payday loan industry, maybe Warren Bolton would wake up. Not much chance of that. Too many real dots to connect.
since Sarah Palin did NOT contribute to the decision to endorse McCain – Brad
Then why bother even discussing her? Because you want to share a leg fetish? Why post any threads on her if she’s such a non-issue, Brad?
The fact is choosing her provides insight into how he will choose the rest of his administration, judges, federal attorneys, etc. Such an impetuous pick gives credence to the notion that he is eratic. Maybe you can try to argue that it was a good pick but to suggest it’s a non-issue in evaluating McCain is both preposterous and hypocritical. You posted a half dozen threads on Wright because Obama picked his church but you ignore Palin? (BTW, she belittled fruit fly research today in her speech. Such research is essential for studying genetics given how quickly they turn over generations. Isn’t ignoring science for 8 years enough?)
I have to agree with Phillip. This is shoddy work.
In the debate, Barack Obama said he opposes the Colombian deal because of human rights concerns over killings of union leaders in that country, and that he opposed NAFTA because he objected to its lack of proper labor and environmental clauses.
The BBC today is saying:
“Three Colombian colonels have been sacked for their alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings.
The colonels are suspected of killing 11 young men from Bogota and passing their victims off as combat casualties in order to gain promotions.
It is believed the three soldiers, from the elite 15th Mobile Brigade, kidnapped or lured the homeless men from the city with the promise of work.
But instead, the victims were taken to Norte de Santander province and killed.”
The article concludes “Sources in the [Columbian] attorney general’s office said that hundreds of soldiers were under investigation in similar cases.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7690490.stm
My question: Doesn’t Barack Obama have it right (once again) to require a free trade agreement with Columbia to have some concern for what kind of government the U.S. is supporting down there?
Consider the real cost (morally and strategically) that America pays when we support corrupt government, the way we did helping create the military power of Saddam Hussein in the Reagan years.
Brad,
I can understand why you endorsed McCain, especially on national security. The problem with this point of view, however, is that you’re not just endorsing one man, you’re endorsing a party. You don’t say a word about how McCain would approach one of the most important parts of the presidency: staffing and running the federal bureaucracy. As much as folks might like to curse “the bureaucracy,” federal agencies perform many vital services, and how they are run has great importance to the long-term health of this country.
The Republican Party is totally adrift in its thinking about how government should work; any agenda for “smaller government” has gone out the window. The current administration’s contempt for “the bureaucracy” has led to jaw-dropping malfeasance by Bush appointees in our many federal agencies and gov’t contractors — the FEMA-fication of the federal government. How will John McCain change this, when GWB’s administration has already spent nearly a decade grooming hacks like Monica Goodling who always put political gains over the hard work of governing — all while expanding federal spending and debt to new highs? Is McCain going to clone himself and nanny every federal office out there? As much as I respect McCain, I don’t think we (or he) can trust the people in his party to govern at this moment in our history.
Obama was a member of the New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Party newspapers contain photos and speeches by Barack Obama at socialist conventions.
If Brad Warthen would let us post pictures, I would post the scans of the newspapers. Right now, I am working them up into a PDF file to put on a web site which will remain up and active until Barack Obama is driven from office, any office.
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America.” He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
Since Brad’s blog breaks my links, I am breaking them into multiple lines. If you restore them to one line, you can get to Obama’s speeches and articles in the New Ground newsletter.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/
10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html
Obama was a member of the New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Party newspapers contain photos and speeches by Barack Obama at socialist conventions.
If Brad Warthen would let us post pictures, I would post the scans of the newspapers. Right now, I am working them up into a PDF file to put on a web site which will remain up and active until Barack Obama is driven from office, any office.
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America.” He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
Since Brad’s blog breaks my links, I am breaking them into multiple lines. If you restore them to one line, you can get to Obama’s speeches and articles in the New Ground newsletter.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/
10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html
Consider the real cost (morally and strategically) that America pays when we support corrupt government, the way we did helping create the military power of Saddam Hussein in the Reagan years.
Posted by: Citizen of Chicago | Oct 25, 2008 6:08:43 AM
Agreed, Citizen, and let’s not forget Reagan’s secret policies which led to the training and financial backing for one Osama bin Laden and his merry band of “freedom fighters.”
Why is Reagan so lionized again? “I can’t recall.”
The House and Senate, both under Democratic control, agreed with Ronald Reagan in giving Iraq just enough support to prevent Iran from conquering them, which would have forced us to fight Iran in Iraq and in their attempts with Syria, to conquer Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
The election of Obama will set our foreign policy and military advances in the Middle East back 30 years, to the Carter era. It will probably force Israel to attack Iran in self-defense at the very moment they are ready to negotiate a peace with Saudi Arabia.
“Going along with the crowd, particularly when they’re lining up behind someone you like very much, and who you fully believe is going to WIN, is the path of least resistance.”
What is Brad Warthen talking about?
The “crowd” of newspapers in South Carolina — a right-of-center state, politically — supports John McCain, and that’s the crowd Warthen has conveniently joined.
So it is easy to see that the “path of least resistance” — the one that runs through the state Warthen lives in — is the path he has taken.
Warthen’s assertions are those of a phony maverick, like his candidate John McCain, and quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest creature his mediocrity of a newspaper has yet produced.
Bill Clinton
Capital A, if you’re going to blame bin Laden on Reagan, “little a” might suit you better as a handle.
The Democrats are wrecking the economy.
The fundamentals of our economy are strong – that is why we still have a +2.8 percent growth rate even after the revelations that the Democrats stole hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars from the taxpayers and gave it to unqualified blacks and Latinos for overpriced mortgages, in order to buy their votes.
If the Democrats continue borrowing trillions of dollars and monetizing the debt with fiat currency, we will soon be in an inflation that will make the Jimmy Carter economy look good, and it wasn’t good.
In the last two years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, they have run up more debt than the previous 6 years, which were inexcusable.
Obama, rather than realizing that all his spending promises cannot be delivered, persists in lying to his followers, and planning to run up $1.2 TRILLION more new debt next year. He cannot pay for his socialistic garbage programs with tax increases, because the mere threat of tax increases will retard investment, send us into a recession, and decrease tax revenues from the height of the Bush economy.
Brad,here’s a piece I would have expected you to write about McCain. The preponderance of similar criticism reveals how far you have strayed.
David Brooks analyzes McCain
Brad Warthen says this about the absence of Gov. Palin in The State’s endorsement:
“But since Sarah Palin did NOT contribute to the decision to endorse McCain, it’s hard for me to see why I would bring that up, explore the problems that she brings to the ticket, and then explain why we would endorse McCain anyway for those of you who don’t get it (and even after doing that at the expense of not giving you the reasons why we did endorse McCain, those of you who disagree would remain unsatisfied). Besides, it would have been a departure to say we’re endorsing someone because of, or in spite of, the vice presidential pick. I can’t think of when we’ve done that before (if you can, please point it out).”
Does anyone else see the lame dodge here?
Let’s imagine for a moment that John McCain was a reformed pedophile, and The State subsequently endorsed his presidential candidacy anyway.
Warthen’s position on the pedophilia issue would then have to run something like this:
“The question of pedophilia never contributed to our endorsement because John McCain is a reformed pedophiliac, so it’s hard for me to see why we’d bring that up. In any case, we’ve never addressed pedophilia in any of our past endorsements, and that’s why we didn’t.”
Goofy, huh?
Do you think Obama is a reformed socialist?
A reformed racist?
Converted from Islam to Christianity?
If you have any doubts about McCain’s erratic behavior — just watch him on Meet The Press today. He lacks good judgement. His negative campaign has spread fear and hatred. His behavior during this campaign has been dishonest and he should not be trusted. He continues to talk about Joe the Plumber who he planted to approach Obama so that he could use it in the last debate to avoid talking about the economy. He continues to say that Senator Obama will raise taxes and this is just one of many lies that McCain is telling. Stretching the truth is expected of politicians but McCain lies.
Another hate post above from the brownshirts at the Obama headquarters.
Obama in 2001 interview outlines his plans to redistribute wealth
speaks for itself. Democrats scam with sub prime mortgages was just the start.
Obama in 2001 interview outlines his plans to redistribute wealth
speaks for itself. Democrats scam with sub prime mortgages was just the start.