More feedback on McCain endorsement

Just in case you didn’t get enough with the comments on this post or this one or this one or this one, here are a few that I’ve received via e-mail. I didn’t keep the attributions because some of these people probably wouldn’t mind and some would, but I don’t have time now to sort them out:


Your recent Sunday column concerning John McCain neglects to mention that John McCain has lied about his military record on several occasions. I was eleven years old and watched the U.S.S. Forrestal as it arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines — minus John McCain. The writer of this article has performed a valuable public service, while you and the rest of the McCain worshippers continue to go AWOL.


His pick of Sarah Palin–that kind of blows the doors off the "experience"

You also failed to mention that he graduated 4th from the bottom of his
class at Annapolis, which makes him dumber than George Bush, who you also
endorsed, twice.

Do you suppose he’s also dumber than Mark Sanford, who you also endorsed?

Why don’t you just say, "At The State, we endorse dumbasses, and McCain’s
pick of Palin as well as his graduating 4th from the bottom of his class at
Annapolis leaves him as the only candidate that we can endorse."

You did good back in the poker machine days, and I still like reading your
stuff some times–some great sentences you can come up with at times–in
fact, i’d even say kind of incredible, and i even quote the stuff from time
to time, giving you the attribution, of course.  The problem is you have
quite a few loose screws that find expression in the endorsement of
candidates who have trashed this state and this country.  yes, you have a
track record.

Fortunately, I’m not going to be able to rub it in your face a few years
from now when you’re writing about what an idiot McCain is, that you
endorsed him (like I have done with Bush and Sanford) because McCain is not
going to win.  Hopefully, you’ll never endorse another winner.  For the good
of this country, let’s hope not.



You are a barrel of laughs.  It is truly funny how you are trying to convince yourself and others that you are open minded and not a closed minded, dyed in the wool, Republican.  The Republicans could literally run this country into the ground and you would still endorse a Republican.  (Oh, I guess that has already happened.)

The rationale for your endorsement was pitiful.  It wouldn’t get a B from a friendly 10th grade Social Studies teacher.  I can imagine the red pencil comment "To endorse McCain because he supported the Surge is not a very deep analysis of the Iraq situation."


Mr Warthen,
I’m sitting here typing, deleting & retyping all the reasons why I find it incredulous that you’ve endorsed McCain for president.
I finally realized that I need not struggle to put it into words – Warren Bolton has already done that, very succinctly.
I will just say that I am extremely disappointed in your decision.  And the reasons given to support it do not resonate with me. 
Your, in my opinion, fool hearty endorsement is one that will remain in the back of my mind & forever color my perceptions of future positions presented by The State.


Mr. Warthen,

I am an Obama supporter and I was disappointed that The State endorsed Sen. McCain. We are all entitled to our opinions, however, and I attempt to be open to views that are different from mine.  I must say, though, that your written justification for the endorsement of Sen. McCain in this morning’s edition was as weak as water.
Thank goodness for Mr. Bolton’s very thoughtful editorial this morning, it was proof to me that there continue to be people on your staff that reason and think independently. That piece and my husband’s insistence on reading every comic strip everyday is the only reason that I did not cancel my subscription to your paper on the spot. 


After reading your editorial and the editorial page this morning, I called your paper and terminated my subscription, even though I have been a subscriber since I moved to South Carolina in 1977.  Through the years, I have agreed and disagreed with your editorials, but I have never considered the disagreements as serious as I do today.  I cannot disagree more with your conclusion that John McCain is better qualified.  I can’t believe that you truly see John McCain as "exhibiting fierce integrity, principled independence and awe-inspiring courage as he has put his country first." 

I have seen nothing but a self-centered, spoiled man who is very angry and who has over and over put himself first.  For you to say that choosing Palin is not a factor for making a decision astounds me since it is such a clear example of McCain’s lack of judgement. I thank Kathleen Parker for giving me the first reasonable explanation of why McCain made such a choice.

I know that one subscriber will not break your newspaper, I just wish I could get everyone in the state who is supporting Senator Obama to also cancel their subscriptions and then maybe you would wake up!


To quote John McEnroe “are you serious!!!” I guess I really shouldn’t be that surprised.

Even though, like John McCain’s support of 90% of George Bush’s policies, I generally agree with The State’s editorial positions and the issues so eloquently addressed by Cindi and Warren and Brad (heck I even got the paper’s endorsement when I ran for Columbia City Council in 2000); I must say I was very disappointed at the endorsement of John McCain.

I realize we all see the world and life through our own “lenses,” but, come on, you folks have blindfolds, or at best blinders, on for this one. I do compliment you on putting the best possible spin on your choice by limiting your reasons and the issues discussed. Especially interesting was your total avoidance of other issues like temperament, and judgment in the choice of Sarah Palin. Guess you don’t see any concerns/negatives in a McCain administration. I could go on. You and most informed citizens/voters know the litany on both sides.

I can’t cancel my subscription over something like this. I am grateful to even get The State delivered out at Lake Wateree. I did have to express my disappointment. You coulda/shoulda picked the best candidate, and likely winner, as have over 200 other publications, four times the number who agree with you/The State.

I’ll still respect you after the election.


To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: to Mr. Warthen

Dear Mr. Warthen:

I am disappointed in your endorsement of Sen. McCain. Not surprised, as you observed. Rather, I am dismayed at the rationale you used in choosing an endorsement for our next president. In a state thirsty for demonstrable fruits of education, we need leaders (including newspaper editors) who apply sound reasoning in decisions. Most of your reasons were poorly grounded – most notably, that the economic crisis and vice presidential selections are irrelevant to your endorsement. Many of us could not disagree more.

A sound economy is one essential key to our collective future. Each political party has a long record of economic policy – these candidates represent those parties ( I remind you that Sen. McCain may have resisted some foolish decisions by his party but he is not an Independent), so the positions on the economic condition are not a wash. Can you give us a deeper foundation for this opinion?

And as Gen. Powell recently observed, THE job of the vice president is to stand ready to be president. Our American tradition is to have two candidates running rather than a solo presidential candidate so the people can choose who the v.p. will be. Using your logic, we should just elect a president and let that person choose a successor after the election. Essentially you have endorsed Gov. Palin to be our executive, commander-in-chief, and strategist in leading us out of this economic crisis. You owe us an explanation for why you support putting our future in her hands.


To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: The State’s Endorsement

I was so disappointed when I read the headline that you are endorsing McCain/Palin in the Presidential race.  I thought after your endorsement published in January of Obama, you were on the right track to unification for the state of South Carolina.  My husband and I have been very involved with this election process and have done much research and study in making our decision for our Presidential Vote.  I would think that with the resources afforded to a large newspaper, you would have come tot the same conclusion that we did.  Obama is our choice, no question.  We have struggled with job loss, student loans for our children in college and our sons service in the military.  McCain will only continue the policies that have made living and working for middle class American families so difficult these past few years.
Your opinion in January about Obama was spot on:

"Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership," the endorsement continued. "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.": The State,  January22, 2008

We are so disappointed in your change of heart, and in our service with home delivery over the past year, that we will be canceling our subscription. 


To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: (no subject)

Good morning to you Mr. Warthen-

Not knowing how to work this "blog" thing, I have to e-mail you my thoughts after reading the McCain endorsement which was no surprise at all.  What else could you people do in a state like
South Carolina?  Your paper, which from what I hear , is losing subscribers due to over-emphasis on sports, particularly football, diminishing Book Review section, less arts, less and less in-depth coverage of national and international news (no wonder people don’t know about the Colombian Free Trade Agreement) loss of the Saturday Editorial Page and having to go to the internet to finish many stories.  Can you imagine the loss of subscribers you would suffer if you endorsed Obama?  Yes, you did once but not for the finish. 

You state in your personal remarks that people know your mind so well.  I disagree.  You always seem to be self-searching, trying to put across that you are neither this or that, so how can anyone know you when you don’t yet seem to know yourself? 

As for knowing McCain, the remarks in the endorsement and yours show that you only know the surface of the man and haven’t really studied him in depth.  His recent acceptance of some of the most vile ads against Obama and his shameless pilfering of Obama’s campaign slogan of Change and many of Obama’s ideas show this as a man who stops at nothing to get what he wants.  During rallies when folks said ugly things about Obama, he made a half-hearted attempt to stop it but later defended his audiences (note that when he tried to stop it, he was booed or given very sparce applause).  He and Palin unleashed some very, very frightening elements during their campaign and this is not the kind of man who should be a leader of all the people.  He has always been a panderer and will always be.  He also has a nasty streak that is also frightening.  Even your favorite columnist, Charles Krathammer, a former psychiatrist or something of the sort, while bashing Obama last week, stated that McCain launched a volcanic missive to Obama when he did not go along with some proposal of McCain’s.  Krathammer should have spent a little more time analyzing McCain.

His military career and his time as a POW was not the glorious, self-giving time that has become an urban legend of sorts.  There are many places one can go to find out who this little man really is – and I just don’t mean little in stature.  He is a bellicose, uneven tempered man with a lot that he is still trying to prove and we are in danger of being his proving grounds.

Further, I would like to see a little more balance on the Editorial Page with your syndicated columnists.  It is discouraging to open the paper and see either Krathammer, Will, Parker.  Once in a while we get Freidman and when it snows in July, Dowd.  Broder is even a change.  Surely there could be a better mix and your letters more balanced. 


I just called and canceled my annual subscription(paid in advance)  to The State Newspaper after 17 years and 8 months. You ask Why?  Let me start by paraphrasing W.C. Fields When the world ends I want to be in SC. He was asked WHY? Because they are Fifty (50) years behind.
I do  not take issue with The State/Brad’s endorsing Sen John McCain.  This was expected.  What I take issue is with the reasons and lack thereof.
1  "Surge"  The war did not start with a "surge"  The war started before the surge and Sen Barack Obama stated before the war and before the surge started that we SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.  The "surge works" not in isolation.  We are paying  many $$$$$$$$$, Have you heard about the "Awakening" No one on itself would be success.  Please tell me now who had the better judgment and foresight from the start? Sen McCain or Sen Obama?

2.  You have lost sight of what the rest of America is mainly concerned about THE ECONOMY  THE ECONOMY THE ECONOMY. "Iran to North Korea"? Who cares RIGHT NOW? What most people care about is feeding their families, I guess we do not have to, My household income is over $250,000.00 per year. 

3.  "Columbia Free Trade Agreement"?  Take a poll of your readers and I bet my re-subscription that no more than 10% knows what you are talking about. Is this the new way of not saying "BLACK"? You yourself had to ask your own guestion  "WHY so many words about the CFTA.  Trying to justified putting the square peg in the round hole.

4.  "Judicial appointment"?  If you believe what both men said about litmus test, I have a bridge to nowhere I can sell you for the price of your subscription. 

5 "immigration reform" how many times did he flip flop on this issue.  What about voting against a MLK holiday?  You have the audacity to mentioned Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid BUT totally ignore Sen McCain’s first decision Gov. Sarah Palin Oh so now you are worried about the majority in Congress?  What happen to the last six years? 

6. Is Country first involve KEATING FIVE, wrecking three planes, jumped out of one that was destroyed, shot down at 3,000 feet when he should have been flying at 4,000 – 10,000 feet?

7.  "Why didn’t ( I prefer  "did not")  mention Sarah Palin"?  You are still trying those pegs.  How could you consider  one without the other ?  All thing been equal Sen McCain should die before Sen Obama.  Are you telling me that is the former is elected president and dies 4 months in his term Gov. Palin is suited to run the country and the world for the next 3 years and 8 months?  What are you drinking?  I do not want even a tea spoon of that, and if you are sneaking some in your paper I do not want to touch same again. 

8. "We could go on and on, and we will"  I will not. If I want to read you paper I can go to Refdesk like I do every day. Where I read at least 3-5 national, and 3-5 international newspaper seven day per week.


To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: McCain endorsement

I gave all my information upfront because I mean this when I say the editorial board has two straight-up wimps, Brad Warthen and Cindi Scoppe. How can you not know who to endorse at this point in time? I realize Ms Scoppe has the right to make her decision anytime she feels like but as educated and bright as Ms Scoppe is, it just seems like she’s afraid to endorse Obama in South Carolina and I say the same thing about Warthen. Please, the reason people assumed the editorial board would endorse McCain is because they knew you would come up with some wimpy reason to endorse the republican candidate.  I do believe that the publisher and owner of the state is not a wimp and I feel like Warren Bolton is not a wimp and the reason I feel that way about those two is that they’re consistent, especially Bolton but endorsing John McCain in South Carolina is not progressive and saying you’re not sure as an educated person when the election is less than 10 days away is not courageous and it’s patronizing to your readers because both candidates have had websites up and running with information on their plans. My issue is not that the State endorses a republican candidate but that they put their circulation ahead of any real effort to change the country or be progressive and after reading Warthen’s commentary over the past year I don’t think he’s very progressive when it comes to race at all. You see when it’s time to do something courageous don’t complain all year long then do the opposite or say I don’t know. 


I am so very glad that McCain has been endorsed.  I supported him in 2000.  I feel his loyalty and dedication to the welfare of the United States is  far above his opponent.  McCain actually cares about this great country and what he can do to protect it.  Obama is more concerned over his "Kingship" of the country.

He is the most arrogant and elitist person who has ever ran for president.  He refuses to answer the "tough" questions and has ran a most negative and dishonest political race.   He is guilty of what he accuses his opponent of.  I feel so much better knowing that The State Paper and you have endorsed the best candidate we have.  Bless You.

So there you have it.

I haven’t had time to respond to more than one or two of these folks, and need to turn to putting out tomorrow’s page now. But at least I could give their views a wider airing by posting them here.

24 thoughts on “More feedback on McCain endorsement

  1. Phillip

    McCain’s lead in Georgia is now down to less than 4%, just about within the margin of error.
    Looking more and more possible that South Carolina could be the only state McCain carries on the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. Well, we’re 45th-50th in many categories in the US, so why not be the laggard here too?

  2. bud

    Here’s a heartwarming excerpt from story about a poor McCain “paid” worker savagely beaten by a 6-4 black man because she supported McCain. Whoops! It’s a hoax. Sure any campaign can have rogue elements. But the McCain campaign sought to exploit the incident before it was exposed as a hoax. From Buzzflash:
    Last week, a troubled young woman handed the McCain campaign a Willie Horton-style race card, and the media helped them play it.
    The attack of a 20-year-old college student was seized upon by the Drudge Report as a “mutilation,” and other conservative Web sites as fodder against the surging Obama campaign. Ashley Todd filed a report with the Pittsburgh Police Department alleging a 6’4” black man robbed her, then carved up her cheek and sexually assaulted her because he saw that she was a McCain supporter. It turns out the story was made up, and that Todd’s black eye and the backwards B scratched into her cheek were most likely self-inflicted.

  3. Doug Ross

    I still like you Brad. 🙂
    Just think of the letters you would have generated had you urged a write-in campaign for Ron Paul.

  4. Lee Muller

    Obama’s lie about McCain workers shouting, “Kill him!” came from Obama’s mouth. The Secret Service so far has found all such claims about McCainn rallies to be just more Obama Big Lies.

  5. Lee Muller

    Barack Obama called himself a socialist.
    Barack Obama is the one using Marxist lingo in his campaign.
    Barack Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which arose from the ashes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a means to advance socialism by electing socialists to office in democratic nations. The DSA is not a political party, but it has over 40 Democrat members of the U.S. Congress as members. One of the many socialist political parties affiliated with it was the New Party in Chicago, Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, and Joel Rogers, a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Barack Obama in 1995 sought the endorsement of the New Party, and received it, because he worked for ACORN, another socialist group. The New Party required Obama and the other candidates to sign a contract supporting socialism.
    Article on the New Party with quotes from their newspaper:
    Photos of Obama and scans of New Party newsletter:

  6. Doug Ross

    A cool map showing the newspaper endorsements for McCain/Obama across the country:
    Endorsement Map
    You can see that more papers have switched from Bush in 2004 to Obama in 2008, particularly in larger cities.
    Magic Eight Ball says “Obama in a cakewalk”
    (which I’m not cheering for)

  7. Lee Muller

    I educated you some today, Randy E.
    Now you KNOW that Obama is a SOCIALIST.
    You still don’t know what a socialist is.

  8. Brad Warthen

    Just a small quibble there, Doug — a paper can’t “switch from Bush” in this election, because BUSH ISN’T RUNNING!
    You know, if I don’t get anything else across in all our discussions about this election, I would like to help everyone understand that simple fact…

  9. Rich

    The reaction you posted should give you pause. I will still read the State every day, but I do so with disappointment. Once again, S.C. is on the wrong side of history. I can’t believe that there would have been much opposition to Obama if he had been 100% white instead of the being the incarnation of racist fears of “miscegenation.”
    Obama is the future of America as this country becomes unavoidably more brown, more Spanish-speaking, more Catholic, and more African American culturally. If the kids I teach in school are any indication, the process of integration is moving ahead quite nicely.
    If we could just get rid of that stupid Tillman constitution of 1895 with which we are currently saddled, S.C. might actually start to make some progress. Our government and our white mandarin political class simply have not kept up with civil society.
    ¡¡Viva el presidente Obama de Estados Unidos de América!!

  10. Rich

    The reaction you posted should give you pause. I will still read the State every day, but I do so with disappointment. Once again, S.C. is on the wrong side of history. I can’t believe that there would have been much opposition to Obama if he had been 100% white instead of the being the incarnation of racist fears of “miscegenation.”
    Obama is the future of America as this country becomes unavoidably more brown, more Spanish-speaking, more Catholic, and more African American culturally. If the kids I teach in school are any indication, the process of integration is moving ahead quite nicely.
    If we could just get rid of that stupid Tillman constitution of 1895 with which we are currently saddled, S.C. might actually start to make some progress. Our government and our white mandarin political class simply have not kept up with civil society.
    ¡¡Viva el presidente Obama de Estados Unidos de América!!

  11. p.m.

    It shouldn’t amaze me, I suppose, given the intensity of the Democrats’ bias here, but the lefties here really should have noticed that The State actually gave Obama a left-handed endorsement.
    The entire package The State ran gave Obama the effective nod, not McCain.
    I suppose that’s par for the course when a newspaper calls itself The State and covers only Columbia, which makes perfect sense when you consider the people running the show at The State aren’t really from South Carolina anyway.

  12. Lee Muller

    Brad can’t say refuse to let Warren Bolton have his own endorsement, because Brad wouldn’t want anyone to think he was racially biased.
    Not that the Obama campaign is all about race, or that Bolton’s endorsement was all about race…
    Brad was careful to be mealy-mouthed in his critique of Obama, and dared not mention his terrorist pals, connections to radical Islam, illegal financing from Arabs, life of voter fraud, his disdain for the Constitution, promises of reparations, etc.

  13. Phillip

    Brad, Doug’s chart talked about papers switching from support of the GOP 2004 nominee (Bush) to the Dem nominee this time (Obama). There are a lot of those, by the way. The chart in no way implied Bush is running this time, so I don’t get your objection. The point is that Obama has wider appeal across party lines than McCain. You may think that’s misguided based on your belief in McCain’s record, but you can only blame McCain for running a campaign that cemented the idea in voters’ minds that Obama is more the unifier than he is.

  14. Lee Muller

    How is a racist like Obama, promising reparations to blacks, and backed by Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farakan, terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn… “a unifier”?
    All Obama unifies is the hate-filled mobs of freeloaders, Muslims, and communists.

  15. bud

    Doug, that was a way cool map (of endorsements). But it didn’t have the #1 paper illustrated? Who is that, the USA Today maybe?

  16. Lee Muller

    Democrats plan to kill 401-k plans
    Barack Obama and other extremists in the Democratic Party are calling tax-free contributions to 401-k plans a “loophole” and readying legislation to end all employer contributions and individual pre-tax contributions.
    “We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings”, said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif, chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
    Rep. Jim McDermott, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their savings into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker.
    The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.
    Did you get that? Workers who saved would be forced to sell out of stocks at the bottom of the market, and deposit the cash into a government savings account.
    A 3% return on $10,000 yields $22,000 in 40 years.
    A 7% return from the stock market average yeilds $150,000.
    The amount of wealth which would be destroyed on the front end would be devastating to economic growth, and leave millions of hard-working Americans dependent on government retirement plan promises.
    The majority of Obama supporters have no savings, and no retirement plans. They welcome taking money from “the rich”. This scheme has appeal to the reparations crowd as more get-back on “rich white folks”.

  17. p.m.

    Rich, you spoke of miscegenation, but that’s not it.
    It was the Miss Alaska pageant Palin almost won.

  18. Ish Beverly

    There will always be racial problems as long as there are people whose livelihood depend on racial problems. When young students ignore race, act indifferent, and begin to accomplish something, the liberal professor will say “OH NO YOU CANNOT BE THAT WAY. YOU HAVE TO LOOK FOR THE BIGOTRY. Most people I know are not voting for Obama because of his past and ideology, not race.

  19. Lee Muller

    Racebaiting used to be a cottage industry of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and self-flagellating white liberal editors who wanted to stir up trouble.
    Obama promises to make race reparations the number one industry in America, to replace the jobs he destroys in automobiles, construction and small business.

Comments are closed.