Our presidential endorsement will be posted at thestate.com/opinion at 7 a.m. Friday. It should also, if we did our coding right, show up on our Endorsements page. If for any reason it fails to show on one, try the other.
The endorsement won’t actually be published in the paper until Sunday, but folks seemed to enjoy seeing our McCain and Obama endorsements back in January early, so we decided to do this.
What WON’T be posted Friday (you’ll have to wait until Sunday) is an extra column or two both explaining our decision, and expressing a dissenting opinion — mainly because they’re not written yet. I decided we should do the dissent thing before we made our decision because I knew it would be tough — and it was — and because I really sort of hate that we can’t endorse both of them again. Yeah, I know a lot of y’all think that’s weird, but I haven’t really changed my mind since January — I still like both of these guys.
I’ll try to explain. Truth be told, I’m a little less enchanted with both of them after watching them as their respective parties’ official nominees. I liked them better when the Republican "base" still hated McCain, and the most angry Democratic partisans were backing Hillary. As standard-bearers they are both somewhat less appealing. But the day-to-day spin cycle stuff that people attach SO much importance to — this campaign ad, that malaprop, this or that candidates’ dig at the other one — doesn’t add up to a whole lot for me.
I had formed my opinions of these guys way back, and by the time Labor Day had rolled around, my impressions were only subject to change around the edges, barring something more significant than anything that actually happened. Think of it this way: My pre-general election campaign impressions were the size of planets, and the day-to-day spin-cycle stuff was just like so many beachballs bouncing around on the planets’ surfaces. Or to use the Rorschach theory I mentioned in the comments on this post, I had already decided what I thought the inkblots looked like; obsessing about the crenellations around the edges were unlikely to change that much.
In light of that, consider what we said about the candidates in January. First, an excerpt from the McCain primary endorsement:
Experience, certainly. Integrity, even more so. But John McCain’s
most conspicuous virtue
is courage. He is a brave and tough man who
unlike some candidates has no need to bluster, but is able to speak
with humility and generosity to those with whom he disagrees. A McCain
presidency would do much to restore confidence in American leadership,
at home and abroad.There is of course the extraordinary physical
and moral courage that he displayed as a prisoner of war in Vietnam,
where he withstood nightmarish torture for years rather than let his
country or his comrades down. But he also possesses the kind of
political fortitude that keeps him from giving up on any worthwhile
quest. He evinces a wisdom born in pain, a confidence earned in many
battles. When others despair, John McCain knows he has seen worse, and
keeps striding forward.
Then, a snippet from the Obama primary endorsement:
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of
great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration – and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity – transcending party – is a core value in itself.Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Can you see how the hardest thing about this for me would be NOT endorsing one of these guys?
Related Posts
What a convenient position. Great display of cuh, cuh, courage.
Not sure what you mean by that, old sport. We endorsed these guys when their nominations were in doubt, and I consider it a miracle that BOTH candidates we favored made it to November. That’s never happened before in my career.
In any case, as I said in this video back in January, if both of them DID get their nominations, it would present the country with a win-win proposition. And that’s where we are now.
but is able to speak with humility and generosity to those with whom he disagrees – Brad regarding McCain
Here are recent examples of said humility and generosity towards Obama:
“Obama wants to lose a war to win an election.”
“Obama will say anything to win an election.”
“Obama dragged Joe the plumber into the media spotlight then smeared him.” (It was McCain citing Joe 21 times in the debate that brought him into the spotlight.)
He represents your UnParty principles well, I can see why you will pen the dissenting endorsement of him tomorrow.
Or, we can look at this:
And then when we’re done, we can go selectively into the Bible and take turns pulling out quotations that prove opposite points.
Randy, I realize that at some point you became bitterly angry at John McCain, and therefore you seize upon any statement that you can to prove that he is an evil person, and is none of the good things that his admirers say he is. I reached the conclusion based upon years and years of observation, that McCain adds up to being the man I described. You can deride that description all you want.
If I choose to tear them down, I can find evidence to tear down every good impression I’ve ever formed of either McCain or Obama. For instance, I could have been collecting the many ways that Obama has repeated the vicious lie that John McCain equals George W. Bush. I point that out just because I doubt that you see these flaws in Obama. In fact, you probably don’t deem that statement to be a lie, much less a vicious one, but I certainly do. John McCain has suffered much at the hands of George W. Bush, and he has done far more to OPPOSE the president, with effect, than Barack Obama has ever done.
But I have made no collection; I have stored up no evidence for the prosecution. Why? Because I came to the conclusion a while back that, in total, Obama is better than those lapses.
I’m sorry that it offends you, but I admire and respect both men.
Brad,
I agree with Randy. Your paper would be brave if it were to endorse Obama in this, my adopted state. I have been here for 26 years now, and I have always felt that S.C. whites were basically neanderthals in their attitudes toward race. Whites here accept legal equality, but in their heart of hearts, they still think that white is better than black.
That has to change.
I work in a public school here and I would love to see Obama elected and a picture of him as commander-in-chief prominently displayed. I would say to my students: we elected him and he is living proof that in America, anyone can become president regardless of race or religion–and, by the way, you too can be whoever and whatever you want to be. The sky’s the limit if you work hard enough.
What a great civics lesson that would be!!
Of course, I certainly don’t expect your paper to challenge the fundamentalist and/or racist powers-that-be in this state. I came here as a young man and was too immersed in my work as a teacher to notice what I see now so glaringly.
The Civil War is over, but some of our white people are in serious need of Reconstruction!!
Rich,
You are a fine example of why public education in South Carolina is such a disgrace. White, black, purple, or green, we are not electing a socialist as president. Your comments are incredibly racist and short-sighted. A very basic logic class might really help your sense of understanding.
Count “Rich” as another poor racist supporter of Obama.
Brad, a “bitter” remark?
Yes, I am angry. The political rancor you claim to abhor is flourishing, largely because McCain can’t win with issues. This win at all cost mentality undermines the effectiveness of our public servants as they are backed into corners.
I have two young kids and see the country we are leaving them deteriorating; infrastructure neglected, obscene federal debt, an undermined status in the world, global warming, and the US losing its lead in innovation and the global economy.
Meanwhile, McCain selects a pathetically ill-prepared VP candidate; is inept in dealing with the economic crisis; is blind to the real international threats as he continues to push for a long term Iraq presence while he flippantly sings about bombing Iran; and shows a complete lack of integrity with his smear campaign. This is clearly not the McCain of 2000 or the increased scrutiny has simply revealed his true character behind that mavericky facade.
I don’t ask that you agree with my positions, but I expect fairness as you moderate this blog. You obsess about Ayers and Wright while out of hand dismissing everything negative about McCain (aside from a “lord help us”). Given a preponderance of evidence that McCain is running a terribly negative campaign, it’s clear by your willful blindness to his gutter tactics that you are not being fair.
Dear Dr. Pangloss (Brad),
These are two very different candidates. It’s not about what you like. I like pizza, but I’m not going to vote for pizza to be president.
Brad, I’m writing this pre-endorsement, but looking back at this quote from the State’s Obama primary endorsement:
“But for [Obama], American unity – transcending party – is a core value in itself.Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.”—-
this really summarizes things for me. McCain has drifted away from that unifying mission in this campaign, perhaps caught in the necessity of capturing the base; Obama by and large has stuck to it.
Having run the campaigs they have, a President McCain will have much less chance than a President Obama of healing the divisions in the country. “Rescuing the republic from the mire” is indeed our top mission. I cannot imagine how John “I’m proud of that ad” McCain, John “she’s the most qualified VP pick in recent history” McCain, and Sarah “He’s palling around with terrorists” Palin can be the ticket to establish American unity.
Randy, if I may:
I may have obsessed about Ayers and Wright, but Brad has not. Truth to tell, Brad obsesses about virtually nothing. We have accused him of sprawling headfirst about Gov. Sanford, and along those lines he may have come to going overboard, but in this election he has run the gauntlet. He has espoused both candidates but damned neither.
And I must say, I would have preferred he gutted Obama. That’s how I lean. But he has not. He has been, as much as my partisanship despises it, altogether fair, by comparison to NBC, or Fox, or even The State itself.
So fair, in fact, that I have found it maddening.
Please realize this, and take care to examine the whole of the matter: However negative McCain has been, Obama has been also. It really has been tit for tat. As uncharacteristic as this eletion may have been, the nominees are candidates like any other candidates. They both want to win. They will do whatever winning takes. All’s fair in love and war, and an election is just war. When it’s over, everyone shakes hands rather than signs a treaty, and lives with the results, perhaps even with a smile. That’s democracy.
If you bemoan our status, our crumbling infrastructure, your children’s fate, please let everyone share that blame. However racist we might be, or inappropriately politically correct, we are nevertheless a democracy, perhaps the grandest democracy in all of history.
We have overcome a lot, Hirohito and Hitler, McCarthy and Mussolini, but we let this happen, you and me and Brad and bud and Lee and everyone else, not just George Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Bush the elder, nor Ronald Reagan, nor Jimmy Carter, nor even Richard Nixon.
We sped to this impasse, if such it be. We waxed intolerant in the age of tolerance. We disagreed without agreeing to disagree.
But when all this is over, whoever wins, America will stand, nonethess. The principles upon which our nation was founded will prevail. We will remain, I pray, the envy of the world.
So let us hope that when all the votes are counted, we can move on together. Let us differ without despising each other. Let us understand that today’s tempest in a teapot can be tomorrow’s “Well, I’ll be dagnabbed.”
We have many reasons to be thankful, and much to anticipate, so let me extend the proverbial olive branch. I’ve been less than convivial, and because scorpions give birth to scorpions, let me for once play the dove.
Dog Bites Man.
The State Endorses McCain.
Same old head in the sand drivel that ignores the entire McCain campaign and the absolute travesty it has been.
The army brat endorses the military guy who thinks every issue is a battle that must fought. Eight years later, Brad gets to win his own personal battle with his publisher.
God help us if the Maverick becomes President. God help us even more if the Maverick doesn’t make it through a four years. The Palin pick alone should have been evidence enough that McCain is unfit to serve.
And the most bizarre aspect of the McCain endorsement, 10% of the text is devoted to the Colombian Free Trade agreement and not a single word about the current economic situation in the United States!
Really? Not a word???
The only way any real issues get brought up in this campaign is by the candidates. The media has been in the tank for Hillary and Obama all along, carefully avoiding discussion of all the scandals and shady characters surrounding both of them.
Tom Brokaw said he didn’t ask any questions about immigration, restrictions on firearms ownership, or abortion, because nobody sent one in – out of 6,000,000 questions. Let’s just state the truth: Tom Brokaw is lying.
It has been like that with 85% of the so-called journalists and pundits.
Socialism isn’t an issue, because they don’t see anything wrong with socialism, as long as the dictators wear expensive business suits instead of military uniforms. They think they can make socialism finally work, without murdering millions of people, because they are so smart – Elitism.
Obama proposes total bans on gun ownership in urban areas, and they think that’s fine, because they don’t think “ordinary black people need guns” – racism.
McCain is criticized for “meanness” for telling how Obama actually voted.
Palin, who runs a state with a budget larter than most states, 25,000 employees, and a $5 BILLION surplus, is ridiculed as “inexperienced” – sexism.
It was the media and academic liberals who put Mussolini into power. The media and academic liberals in Europe and America applauded Adolf Hitler as a 1930s “progressive”.
Now they cheer Barack Obama as a “progressive”. They don’t know how right they are.
Doug, there was not a word about his most profound decision/mistake, choosing Sarah Palin as VP. The majority of the country and numerous conservatives believe the pick showed bad judgment which not only undermines his “country first” motto but also puts the country at risk.
There was also a deft side step of McCain’s troubling reactions (plural) to the economic crisis: “it’s all psychological”, “fundamentals are strong”, followed hours later by “economy in crisis”, a suspension of the campaign, and buying bad mortgages at original value.
Sadly disappointing but no longer surprising given that Brad has continuously imagined the McCain of 2000 while completely ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.
Brad will respond “we can’t please everyone and we can’t address everything”. In doing so, he will continue to completely ignore all valid and important arguments to the contrary.
Citing Obama’s opposition to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement was inspired. That issue alone clearly shows his blind allegiance to his party’s position, proving that his politics are neither new nor representative of change. Contrasting that with McCain’s record on judicial nominations underscored that and my belief that Obama will govern as typical Democrat like his buddy, Deval Patrick. .
You did not mention another crucial distinction: energy policy. I’m not criticizing, only commenting on its omission.
BTW, The Hammer came out for McCain today, taking a potshot at those who’ve abandoned McCain’s listing ship.
He concludes by asking which guy would you rather have on the parapet: he’s for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
I may have obsessed about Ayers and Wright, but Brad has not. Truth to tell, Brad obsesses about virtually nothing. – pm
PM, welcome back from the parallel universe. Brad posted multiple threads about Wright and Ayers. He has more posts (two) about the legs (sticks as he calls them) of female candidates than the gutter tactics or of the haphazard response of McCain to the economic meltdown.
BTW, Brad, if the Surge (combine with the Sunni Awakening and other factors) was so successful, when will THE OBJECTIVE of political reconciliation be achieved and when will we be down to pre-surge troop levels?
My only complaint is on the litmus test issue. Yes, in the past McCain clearly did not have a litmus test. However, in the middle of the campaign he announced he was only supporting strict constructionists.
There are two possibilities here. First “strict constructionist implies against R.v.W.”. In that case requiring a judge to be a strict constructionist by default requires them to be anti-R.v.W. It is therefore a litmus test. The alternative is that “strict constructionist does not imply against R.v.W.”. In this case, I have to ask why it is trotted out by candidates on the right when campaigning in front of the religious right – knowing that those auidences take it to mean against R.v.W.? The only reason I can think of that a candidate not picking judges who are against R.v.W. would mislead people into thinking so is that they are a lying panderer.
So, a) litmus test, b) lying panderer, or c) the religious right doesn’t thing strict constructionist means R.v.W?
[And I have a Pat Robertson quote standing by to dispense with argument c]
The best thing I can say about this endorsement is that it’s an improvement over the astoundingly ban 2004 endorsement for POTUS. It was probably too much to expect that anything could be that atrocious.
Randy and Doug have pretty much covered the major points. Given the very limited space why bring up the Colombian free trade agreement? That’s pretty minor and frankly Obama has a point, violence is still going on there, just not at the same insane level as it was a few years back.
But mostly this endorsement is pretty much based on one issue, Iraq. The State continues to be wrong on this, along with McCain. We shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Then when violence was so rampant we definitely should have gotten out. The surge just wasted more lives and money. And we’re still there spending $10 billion/month. Soldiers and citizens are still dying. And if McCain gets his way we’ll be there another 100 years. So all this harping on the surge is misplaced. Obama has been right from the start on this issue.
But as others have pointed out how can a newspaper endorsement just completely ignore two very major issues?: the economic meltdown and the Palin selection. Astounding. Just astounding. The Palin selection alone should completely disqualify McCain. It shows bad judgement and a very compulsive nature on his part. Do we really need a compulsive president?
I’m actually surprised by the endorsement. Would love to know how this process works, and who came down on which side.
Randy, when an editorialist who extols supposed Unparty virtues calls the “McCain vs. Bush” line a “vicious lie” but cannot even summon up a little bit of outrage over “palling around with terrorists,” we are indeed living in a world of strange moral equivalencies, or un-equivalencies as the case may be. How can we ever hope to have civil, bipartisan political discourse when the supposed advocates of such approaches are so partisan in their perspectives?
Mike, Krauthammer’s endorsement of McCain and criticism of all the GOPers and other conservatives who have crossed over simply points out the basic flaw in the claim that McCain can better work across party lines. Obama HAS support across party lines and ideological lines. Few prominent Dems (I can’t think of any) have endorsed McCain.
Randy, the omission of any mention of Palin is beyond astonishing. It’s just shoddy journalism. I’d say given the big problems facing the State newspaper and the recent poll showing McCain up 20 here, the editorial board did not particularly relish going against the flow locally.
REAL ISSUE: Obama is a racist.
His mother was tramp, who shacked up with a string of men, all non-white. You can see how she became a racist when you read Obama talk about her father.
Obama’s mother remarried an Indonesian Muslim, and sent Barack to fundamentalist Muslim schools, which taught that Jews and Christians were evil.
His grandfather was a white liberal racist, who saw his own racism as inherent, and saw it in every action of whites, however reasonable and colorblind, through is own racist prism. He inculcated into Obama the notion that white people were inherently racist.
Fatherless Barack looked to a friend of his grandfather as a mentor – Frank Marshal Davis, a card-carrying Communist, who hated whites, Jews and capitalism.
Obama fed himself the radical writings of Malcolm X and others.
At Columbia University, Obama roomed off campus with a Pakistani smuggler. His mentor at Columbia was professor Khalidi, a member of the PLO.
In Chicago, Obama hooked up with the Nation of Islam as a community organizer for ACORN. His mentor became Khalid Monsour, the middleman between Saudi money Black Muslims. That is also where Obama met Bill Ayers and his communist circle.
Khalid Monsour got Percy Sutton, the lawyer for Malcolm X. Sutton pulled strings to get Barack into Harvard Law School. Khalid got the money to pay for it from Prince Alween of Saudi Arabia.
After law school, Obama struggled to make a living until being hired by the Daley machine. Abner Mikva, a socialist Democrat, reconnected him with Farakan’s real estate projects and Tony Rezko.
Barack and his radical, racist wife, Michelle, joined the personality church of Jeremiah Wright, a former Black Muslim not teaching his own mix of Islam, New Testament Gospel, and his hatred of whites and Jews.
Obama’s advisors include Bill Ayers, Michael Klonsky (another Weatherman), bomber Bernadine Dorn, Harold Ickes (Stalinist upbringing), Leon Panetta (Castro Brigades), Laura Tyson (Romanian communism), etc ad nauseum.
REAL ISSUE: Obama is a racist.
His mother was tramp, who shacked up with a string of men, all non-white. You can see how she became a racist when you read Obama talk about her father.
Obama’s mother remarried an Indonesian Muslim, and sent Barack to fundamentalist Muslim schools, which taught that Jews and Christians were evil.
His grandfather was a white liberal racist, who saw his own racism as inherent, and saw it in every action of whites, however reasonable and colorblind, through is own racist prism. He inculcated into Obama the notion that white people were inherently racist.
Fatherless Barack looked to a friend of his grandfather as a mentor – Frank Marshal Davis, a card-carrying Communist, who hated whites, Jews and capitalism.
Obama fed himself the radical writings of Malcolm X and others.
At Columbia University, Obama roomed off campus with a Pakistani smuggler. His mentor at Columbia was professor Khalidi, a member of the PLO.
In Chicago, Obama hooked up with the Nation of Islam as a community organizer for ACORN. His mentor became Khalid Monsour, the middleman between Saudi money Black Muslims. That is also where Obama met Bill Ayers and his communist circle.
Khalid Monsour got Percy Sutton, the lawyer for Malcolm X. Sutton pulled strings to get Barack into Harvard Law School. Khalid got the money to pay for it from Prince Alween of Saudi Arabia.
After law school, Obama struggled to make a living until being hired by the Daley machine. Abner Mikva, a socialist Democrat, reconnected him with Farakan’s real estate projects and Tony Rezko.
Barack and his radical, racist wife, Michelle, joined the personality church of Jeremiah Wright, a former Black Muslim not teaching his own mix of Islam, New Testament Gospel, and his hatred of whites and Jews.
Obama’s advisors include Bill Ayers, Michael Klonsky (another Weatherman), bomber Bernadine Dorn, Harold Ickes (Stalinist upbringing), Leon Panetta (Castro Brigades), Laura Tyson (Romanian communism), etc ad nauseum.
Sen. McCain has often led the charge against the Bush administration when it was wrong on national security, from the 9/11 Commission (working with Joe Biden to make that happen) to the use of torture.
-McCain Endorsement
Is the editorial board making a joke here or are they just plain stupid. This was IMHO the very worst moment for John McCain in all the years I’ve followed him. Namely his inexplicable flip-flop on the torture issue. Check it out, McCain voted to allow the CIA to conduct torture. It’s on the record. This flagrant misrepresentation of McCain on this issue shows how worthless the editorial board is. They can’t even get a basic issue of fact right. Shame, shame, double shame.
Here’s an excerpt from the Huffington Post from earlier this year:
McCain’s most recent endorsement of torture was his vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 on February 13th. The bill was hotly debated because it would make it illegal for US intelligence agencies to use interrogation techniques that are forbidden by the military’s guidelines. President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation and McCain lined up with 38 other Republican Senators, one Democrat, and his good friend independent Joe Lieberman to vote against it. In the debate McCain argued somewhat bizarrely that while he strongly opposes torture he is unwilling to apply the military’s standards to the intelligence agencies. Lieberman commented that waterboarding is not torture in any event as it does no permanent damage.
I’m with Bud — first of all, in remembering The State’s 2004 POTUS endorsement as so obsessed with Iraq that it was absolutely peculiar. Then and now, the focus on Iraq to the exclusion of all else is a sad mistake. It is a mistake that our 9/11 attackers wished us to make; their stated goal was to provoke us into wearing out our economy and our people in war.
In the meantime, there are other problems that are in the long-term more dangerous to us as a nation, from foreign relations (for example, Iran) to the economy. In that context, McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, who is profoundly divisive as well as unqualified, represents extremely poor judgement (whatever one identifies as the source of that poor judgement). I suspect that McCain sees that choice differently than some of us because he doesn’t really believe that he could die or become disabled in office, but the rest of us should be more realistic.
All the pro-McCain comments notwithstanding, McCain is set to LOSE this election, and perhaps by a wide margin. Still, I am astounded that the State would endorse a Republican when the stewardship of GOP has proven to be so disastrous for the country. What would it take for you to endorse a Democrat for president? A Depression in wartime? (Oh, excuse me, we seem to have that already!)
Or are you part of the fundie crowd here in the South that is looking forward to The End of Days and is searching the scriptures daily to see if Barack Obama is indeed the Antichrist? If you think I jest, just go to the website of our own local group of prophecy full-mooners on Platt Springs Road: http://www.midnightcall.com. What these people believe is also recorded in the immensely popular “Left Behind” series produced by Tim LaHaye. Democracy in this country, they believe, will elect the Antichrist–and he will, conveniently, be black.
This is the kind of rubbish running around in the minds of McCain’s supporters as the world collapses around them. Communists have been replaced in their rogue’s gallery with Muslims (bravo to Colin Powell for setting the country straight on that one; I am sure the GOP will never speak to him again!), while history has been distorted by their mad prophetic ravings.
I read the State every day (mainly for the local news and the sports; your take on world affairs I can frankly do without) and I was deeply saddened to notice that the support for the candidates almost perfectly mirrors our racial divide. I even see it among people I know. If you’re white, chances are you’re voting for McCain. Of course, the reason is always that he’s so “experienced.”
Well, I think this election is going to show how irrelevant your paper is in this poor, ignorant corner of the Union.
Oops, Mike C, when I said I couldn’t think of any Dems who supported McCain I obviously forgot Lieberman.
In any case, it is ironic that a general election campaign that began with one prominent Democrat endorsing McCain is ending with a truly substantial array of Republicans and conservatives endorsing Obama.
Obama’s appeal, unlike the new McCain’s, cuts across party and ideological lines. This alone is reason to vote for Obama. We need a leader that has pulled free of the rhetorical traps of the past, the divisiveness, the kind of mindset that divides us into blue and red, into pro-American and anti-American, into “real” America and some other kind of America.
We are all Americans. McCain once knew that, at least intellectually. Obama is the living embodiment of that.
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.
I should have added “the State’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge that reality notwithstanding” to that last sentence.
Millions of Americans are now in the process of determining who will lead the nation as president for the next 4 years. Our system ensures that one of just two individuals will become that leader. Both been have compelling personal stories that illustrate how this great nation of ours affords people the opportunity to overcome adversity and to ultimately succeed. John McCain has taken the more traditional approach. As the son and grandson of Admirals McCain himself served his country honorably in a controversial war. His military record is commendable and we owe Senator McCain a debt of gratitude for his service.
Barack Obama has a different, though no less compelling, American story. He overcame great adversity and ultimately succeeded in many challenging arenas. Obama is the first African American to have a legitimate chance to become president. That in itself speaks volumes for the great strides we have taken as a nation. Obama should not be judged on his race, rather he should be considered in the context of his qualifications, intelligence and stance on the issues. But his ability to overcome barriers speaks volumes about the character of this remarkable man.
And so this amazing election campaign draws to a close. Who is the best man to lead America through the 21st century? The contrast between the two men is clear. John McCain’s judgment and behavior during this campaign season can best be described as bizarre. From his choice of Sarah Palin to his on-again, off-again performance prior to the first debate Senator McCain has displayed a bewildering detachment from reality. McCain continues to support President Bush on the vast majority of issues yet claims to be a “maverick” who will challenge his party. Is this really believable at this point?
The choice in this contest is really no choice at all. Barrack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated sound judgment, even-temperament and a command of a great range of issues. He was correct in his opposition to the war in Iraq and on the campaign trail he’s demonstrated his understanding of what constitutes genuine threats to America’s security from abroad. Senator Obama understands the real danger is from the resurrection of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and not from the ongoing tribal conflicts in Iraq. He also understands the need to aggressively pursue diplomatic efforts.
In the most important decision of the campaign Obama’s sound judgment was confirmed with his selection of Joe Biden for Vice President. Biden will never be regarded as a rock-star celebrity, but Biden has a broad command and understanding of all major issues and is well qualified to step into the roll of president if something should happen to Mr. Obama. The same cannot be said for Governor Palin.
In domestic policies Obama likewise understands the challenges America faces. His steady hand will lead to well thought-out decisions regarding economic matters. He has also shown his understanding of the importance of the supreme court. Instead of merely rubber-stamping Bush’s very partisan and dangerous picks for the highest court in the land Obama’s no vote showed his dedication to do what is best for America. The next president will make as many as four supreme court nominations. Senator Obama has demonstrated his understanding of what makes a good justice and he will no doubt choose wisely.
Although I respect John McCain for his long service to country and harbor no personal animosity toward him he is not the man we need during this difficult time. His age and health issues become much more important given the poor choice he made for VP. Likewise his flawed policy decisions and unpredictable changes on very important issues, torture being the most important, call into question his temperament and judgment. We do not need a man with the recent history of bizarre behavior shown by McCain.
Conversely, when it comes to temperament, judgment, energy, intelligence and integrity Barack Obama has shown through his public service and personal achievements that he is the right man for the job. For these reasons I support Barack Obama for president.
The real question is what impact will the endorsement of a paper that doesn’t even reach a majority of the people in this state have on Nov 4th?
Well Brad, you’ve disappointed me. Despite your insistence on blinding yourself to what’s been happening in the campaign, I was so sure you’d make the right choice anyway. Instead your board has produced an editorial which to me seems flawed at every point (except the Colombia free-trade agreement, and honestly how big an issue is that really? Was it truly worth the longest paragraph in the whole thing?) I don’t really feel the need to go into detail after bud’s excellent summary.
I still have a lot of respect for you as a person, but I have to say that I now feel I was wrong to believe you when you said your endorsement wasn’t a foregone conclusion weeks ago (except inasmuch as you had to override any objections from your peers).
Ya got noticed by NRO’s MediaBlog . “We haven’t posted a lot of these, but I thought this was a good one.” They follow with an excerpt.
This was fascinating. Obama and Biden voted with Bush frequently but did break a considerable amount. McCain was pretty much a vote Bush could count on. So exactly who is more willing to cross party lines?
USA TODAY politics editor Catalina Camia reports on a new Congressional Quarterly analysis of how often senators and House members have supported President Bush from his January 2001 inauguration through Oct. 3 of this year:
It’s no surprise that Democrat Barack Obama is among the senators who don’t back the president very often. He voted with Bush 41% of the time, putting him near the bottom of presidential support.
Republican John McCain — who is often criticized by Obama for being like Bush — supported the president 90% of the time. Sixteen GOP senators scored higher than McCain.
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden backed Bush 52% of the time.
Hey Brad – just saw your endorsement – now I understand clearly why you couldn’t seem to get the point of my last op-ed. You had your “blinders” on, just as you apparently did with this endorsement. Have a good day.
I’m shocked, simply shocked.
Anyone here who thought Mr. Warthen’s board would do anything other than endorse John McSame should not pee in a jar.
The last Democratic Party nominee for President The State endorsed was Harry Truman in 1948.
As others have pointed out repeatedly, Mr. Warthen has a man-crush on McSame that will never die.
The State editorial board has never been known for their judgment. Having helped foist the worst president in history on the United States citizenry twice AND having aided and abetted the election of the worst governor in our modern-day history, Marshall Sanford,they should all be ashamed of themselves and resign.
Brad-
Congratulations on your endorsement of the only candidate who will defend the Constitution of the United States.
Guero’s sunny attitude aside, if anyone actually HAS researched our endorsements that far back, I’d like to see the research. I know that the paper has a long streak of endorsing Republicans (for president; our endorsements overall have leaned slightly Democratic during my tenure at least), I have never been able to find the time to dig through that much microfilm. I’ve started to a couple of times (years ago, when I had more than twice the staff I had now) and didn’t get very far. Unfortunately, the electronic database only goes back to 1987, and that’s unhelpful. I’ve been here since then, so I already knew the paper endorsed the Republican in 1988 on.
What I’m not clear on is, DID we endorse Carter? Or Johnson? Or Kennedy? I just don’t know (but from what little I DO know, Carter seems the most likely of the three). Of course, none of those have anything to do with ME, but you don’t care that I was 8 years old at the time or whatever, do you?
The problem with most of your endorsements is that they come too late, whether for candidate, amendments or bond referendums.
The debate has passed you by.
Likewise, by refusing to report as news the details of platforms and what the intended results of amendments and borrowing are supposed to be, the really interested voters have already sought information elsewhere.
The news has passed you by.
> Congratulations on your endorsement of the
> only candidate who will defend the
> Constitution of the United States.
I must have skipped over the part in the Constitution where it says “If you can make it across the border, you can stay”.
“The State editorial board has never been known for their judgment. Having helped foist the worst president in history on the United States citizenry twice…”
Did Jimmy Carter really serve a second term, Guero?
And, Randy, thanks for at least giving my alternate universe credit for being parallel. I woulda thought you thunk it perpendicular.
Mr. Warthen: You told me in person when we appeared together on a radio program in 1998 that Tom McLean was your source for knowing The State’s history as a Republican newspaper.
Of course, Mr. McLean still believes Jimmy Carter was a communist and a traitor for returning the Panama Canal to Panama after we had stolen the land from one of the successor regimes to your old residence in the Viceroyalty of New Grenada. Mr. McLean may still haunt your newspaper as Spaceman Lee seems to channel his views.
Bottom line, Mr. Warthen, the John McSame you champion doesn’t exist anymore. He long ago sold his soul to get elected by pandering to the Bushites and Lee Mullers of the Republican Party.
Warthime, you and your fellow editors are a bit early for April Fool’s but this column favors a trick moreso than a treat. To sum up, you support McCain because he has “suffered” longer.
By your collective reasoning, I guess the members of the Buffalo Bills’ powerhouse teams of the early ’90’s deserve SuperBowl rings for their “valiant showings” in repeated defeats. What a farce and logical fallacy this inconsequential backing is!
The “surge” worked? Consult Merriam-Webster’s for the definition of “Band-Aid.” The State is holding onto the past when the McCain who could have met our current needs was shattered in the wake of the 2000 election, only to be replaced by a bitter and clueless wraith of what once was.
As for the ironically named “Rich”, I know this is a tough time for charities, but I pray someone has it in his or her heart to spare you some common sense. Your reverse-racism is the very fuel that feeds the fires of those whom you seek to oppose. Poor choice of words, Rich.
If you find SC so distasteful, I’m sure the Southern hosptality of this blog alone will be enough to afford you a bus ticket back to whatever Rustbelt shantytown from which you came. I suspect that’s an issue which everyone from simple folk like me to the blueblooded Mullers of the world can agree…which is saying a lot.
Yeah, but what did I say Tom said SPECIFICALLY? Did he say it had been since 1948? Because I don’t remember now; all I can remember is that I’ve never succeeded in documenting the record, even though I’d like to.
Barack 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.
I previously posted names of members of various socialist groups inside the US Congress, all Democrats.
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.
Brad, The State does have microfiched copies of its papers back throught WWII, doesn’t it? The endorsement history can be researched, can’t it?
Yes, it does, and as I explained above, I started a couple of times to research it years ago when I had twice the staff I do now, and couldn’t find the time to get very far.
Hence my hope that some student of S.C. history out there, preferably one who would get class credit or even a degree for spending days and weeks on such a thing, might have accomplished what I never did.
And just a warning to anyone who tries — the record can be kind of mushy and vague. For instance, at one point I read through all of the editorials for the month leading up to the 1968 election — or was in 1964 (this was about a decade ago)? Anyway, there were a lot of dark murmurings against Veep Hubert Humphrey, some of apparently having to do with his saying things that (GASP!) black people liked to hear. But I didn’t run into an endorsement per se.
Note that when I joined the board in 1994, it had a haphazard approach to endorsements. Editors endorsed in the races that they wanted to endorse in. I started the policy that we should do all we can to endorse in EVERY contest race in state and county races in Richland and Lexington counties (which would include statewide, and presidential). Voters have to make a choice, so we should too, no matter how unpleasant or difficult. I can only think of two or three times we failed to choose, and we said so at the time. (One case was when Bob Peeler was running against, I think it was Nick Theodore, for lieutenant governor. We essentially said we couldn’t bring ourselves to endorse either of them, and who the heck cares who the Gov Lite is anyway? We’ve endeavored not to let ourselves cop out like that since.)
In fact, it was probably my knowledge that however hard I looked, on some years I would not find an overt endorsement either way, that helped me lose interest in the research enterprise. Add to that the fact that I consider each election without regard to what some previous editor might have done, and my motivation sort of melted away…
Capital A, this is Rich. I have lived in the South most of my life (I am now 52). To love the South is not to be blind to its faults. Do keep that in mind as your beloved Republicans go on to lose an election on a national scale that might even call their future existence as a party into question.
Capital A, this is Rich. I have lived in the South most of my life (I am now 52). To love the South is not to be blind to its faults. Do keep that in mind as your beloved Republicans go on to lose an election on a national scale that might even call their future existence as a party into question.
You know, Rich, it’s statements such as yours immediately above, saying this election might call the existence of the Republican party into question, that limit the credibility of Democrats.
Four years of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Frank, a genuine cast of left-wing clowns, would strengthen the Republican base such as never before.
It’s funny how Democrats claim to be the party of the people but always look down their noses at their opponents. The way you guys have gone out of your way to claim McCain the war hero is an evil risk, it’s reasonable to assume you’d savage Mother Theresa for the sake of winning a dog-catcher election.
P.M., I strongly recommend you read Christopher Hitchens’ “The Missionary Position.” You might change your opinion of the good mother.
As for the Republicans, well, I gleefully await the advent of their Gotterdamerung. I believe it’s scheduled for November 4? And to think I don’t even need to refer to Bible prophecy to make my prediction!
Where’s that fat blowhard John Hagee when you need him?
“democrats claim that McCain the war hero is an evil risk.” – pm
So any war hero is automatically qualitifed to be president? We should over look his bungling reaction to the economy – “the fundamentals are strong” followed 3 hours later by “the economny is in crisis”? Before that, his chief financial hack, Gramm, tells us the crisis is only “psychological” and calls us “whiners”?
He talks wants us to continue spending $10 BILLION a month in Iraq (we’re not even down to pre-surge troop levels) meanwhile we are to buy up all the bad mortgages at original value in the midst of our economic 911. We’ll also cut taxes and he’ll give everyone a $5k tax credit for health costs. I guess the money saved by cutting the bridge to no where that Palin originally supported will pay for all this. Oops, I forgot, Palin kept the federal money earmarked for that bridge after the project was scrapped.
We should ignore all this because he’s a war hero, eh?
PM, for once I’d like to see you support your boy McCain’s positions on this. You can’t because he’s indefensible so you will probably follow the only option McCain has, attack Obama.
I wrote: “It’s reasonable to assume you’d savage Mother Theresa for the sake of winning a dog-catcher election.”
So Rich attacks Mother Theresa and Randy fires at McCain and Palin with both barrels.
Thanks for proving my point, guys.
Now that we got the issue of who’s attacking whom all straightened out, suppose y’all tell me all the wonderful changes Obama and his Keystone Cops legislative buddies will bring to bear once they have control of the parking lot.
Capital A, this is Rich. I have lived in the South most of my life (I am now 52). To love the South is not to be blind to its faults. Do keep that in mind as your beloved Republicans go on to lose an election on a national scale that might even call their future existence as a party into question.
Posted by: Rich | Oct 24, 2008 7:08:08 PM
“Rich” (all irony in pronunciation intended), you haven’t been on this blog very long if you think I’m a Republican supporter. The closest I come to supporting the right wing is to say that McCain, even currently in his mentally degraded form, is still a better option than the last eight years of BushBaby’s reign.
Though I have not reached your advanced age yet, I was born here and have travelled extensively. In my youth, I accepted that the South could be characterized as more racist than other regions. After journeys through regions containing hoveltowns like the one you fled, I came to find out that assumption was incorrect and deeply flawed. I also came to understand why we often hear of Northerners moving South, but the opposite hardly ever happens.
You love SC, but if I ever moved to Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, for instance, I would never make an equivalent claim, without the influence of heavy drugs or some direct threats to the lives of my family.
Every area has its own racism and demostrates it in a variety of ways. It’s a human problem, not a regional problem. If you truly are an educator, you should have such insight as well.
If you are the stereotypical bleeding heart that you portray yourself as, then you are the example that conservatives can point to when mocking public education. And for that, thanks for helping our shared opponents, Rich. You are Lee’s liberal doppleganger, for whatever that is worth.
You made a blanket statement about an entire regional race. Poor, poor judgment, Rich, especially as you are standing at Senior Citizenry’s door, yet have garnered no more wisdom than you have demonstrated concerning human nature and behavior.
Let me make myself clear. I am from Louisiana, lived in California and Massachusetts for long stretches, and finally settled here in SC in 1982.
If America is unfortunate enough to let Obama and ACORN steal this election and set up the socialism they dream of, the only question is will we have to wait for another election to get rid of them, and will there ever be another honest election so they can be removed from power?
The Democrats plan to use make instant citizens out of illegals, keep registering and voting illegal and non-existent voters, and censor their critics, and disarm honest, law-abiding Americans.
I guess if long-lost ties and meetings with troubling political figures both foreign and domestic is what you’re left with when attacking Obama, you might not want to follow this link:
http://tomasdinges.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/mccain-meets-pinochet-in-1985/
Sure, John McCain, you oppose dicatators everywhere! You’re a really tough guy as long as they aren’t serving free, grilled rainbow salmon. Just another spoiled dandy about to lose a Presidency he thinks is his entitlement; Bush baby-lite, as it were…
“I’ll find bin Laden! I will! I know where he is hiding! I was just at his cave the other day for some exquisite rock soup and steak tartar!”
Why hasn’t hypocrisy become synonomous with Republicans by now? Heck, why haven’t the GOP started calling themselves by something else since they have strayed so far from their founding tenets?
(And no, I’m not bothering to learn how to hypertext links for this unwieldy and godforsaken blog format. If you’re too lazy to cut and paste, then put the school supplies away.)
PM, comparing attacks against McCain’s positions with the smearing of Obama is LAUGHABLE.
I think McCain is wrong by suggesting that we “buy bad mortgages” at original value and wanting to continue in Iraq along with his choice of Palin. Contrast that with McCain’s gutter tactics of referring to Obama with “he wants to lose a war to win an election” and “he pals around with terrorists” which has widely been condemned by republicans.
You seem like an intelligent guy. Not understanding the difference between attacking positions and attacking character is actually surprising.
Come on, stand up for your guy. What does he offer?
But Obama DOES pal around with socialists.
Obama was a member of the New Party, a socialist party spun off from the defunct Communist Party USA.
Obama’s pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn are terrorists, and admit to being accessories to murder.
John McCain has lied about his military record with respect to the Forrestal disaster, and yet the major news media has neglected to talk about for fear of seeming to Swiftboat someone they have already classifed as a military hero.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081007_investigating_john_mccains_tragedy_at_sea/
investigating_john_mccains_tragedy_at_sea/
John McCain has lied about his military record with respect to the Forrestal disaster, and yet the major news media has neglected to talk about it for fear of seeming to Swiftboat someone they have already classifed as a military hero.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081007_
investigating_john_mccains_tragedy_at_sea/
Did you care about John Kerry falsifying his military record, and seeking an early discharge on psycological grounds?
By the way, your smear about John McCain is a complete fabrication.
Obama = all hate, all the time
Alprazolam.
Heroin mixed with alprazolam. Alprazolam without prescription. Alprazolam r039 prices. Alprazolam. Cheap 2mg alprazolam.
Tramadol.
Tramadol 93. Ultram tramadol. What is tramadol. Cheap tramadol fedex overnight.