When we sat down Monday to begin our discussion about whom to endorse for president, someone remarked that The Philadelphia Inquirer (which in Knight Ridder days was a sister paper of The State, but no more) had done an unusual thing — run an endorsement of Obama, and a dissenting opinion favoring McCain.
At that point, not knowing yet where we would end up but sensing that we’d be divided (I was right, by the way), I said that was quite a coincidence, because I had been about to suggest that wherever we ended up, we should run a same-day column from a board member favoring the candidate who did not receive our endorsement.
As of this moment, we plan to do that.
But what we’ll be doing will be wildly different from what Philly did, I realized when I actually went and read those pieces online. They didn’t have an editorial endorsement of one candidate and then a column from an individual dissenter. (For those of you who don’t understand the difference, an editorial is the institutional opinion of a newspaper, an opinion arrived at by the editorial board; it is therefore unsigned. A column is the opinion of the individual who signs it. Big difference, as far as we’re concerned.)
Instead, they had TWO SEPARATE editorials. At least, that’s the way it looks online. I’d be interested to see a copy of that day’s paper to see how it was presented.
First, they endorsed Obama, and did a pretty good job of it. It was better reasoned, I thought, than the much-ballyhooed Tribune endorsement (I came away from the Trib one thinking, Folks, if you’re gonna make history, do a better job of explaining the thinking that went behind it. You left me with the impression that you were "making history" just to say you did so.)
THEN, they had a separate editorial endorsing McCain, and the only explanation offered was this editors’ intro: "The Editorial Board’s endorsement of Barack Obama was not unanimous. Dissenters said:…" That was it. What followed was not only a differing opinion, but one seemingly based on alternative interpretations of reality. Like the first one, it was well reasoned, and even MORE strongly worded than the Obama endorsement. But the disconnect between them is weird. The first editorial complains of McCain’s "persistent deceptions in this campaign." The other one says flatly of McCain, "His word is good," and goes on:
Ask people to describe McCain and the first response often is, "He’s honest." What you see is what you get. There are no mysterious associations to dance around. No 20-year attendance of a church whose pastor preached anti-American sermons. No serving on an education reform panel with a domestic terrorist. No financial support from a convicted felon. No ties to a group currently under investigation for possible voter-registration fraud.
Those two thoughts — faith in McCain’s essential integrity and disappointment over the way he’s conducted his campaign — CAN be reconciled; they CAN be held by the same person or the same board. But reconciling them requires a coherent effort to do so, not starkly opposite statements.
Folks, I understand that choosing to endorse one or the other is not easy. It hasn’t been easy for us, and we did consider alternatives. But we have chosen, and will present the result this weekend, along with plenty of both supporting AND dissenting info. But what we say will be straightforward (I hope; we haven’t started writing yet). Philly was just confusing.
When I heard that someone had explained what happened at Philly in a blog post, I went eagerly to read it. But I was disappointed. It was just something from a former reporter at the paper — someone who would have known little of the editorial board’s workings even when he worked at the paper — offering little more than his uninformed guess about what happened. Basically, the paper has left a information vacuum that invites such speculation.
MY uninformed impression is that this is an editorial board in disarray, probably from too many leadership changes in recent years. The paper has had four editorial page editors that I can recall in the time I’ve been in this job, and I wasn’t trying to keep up with them — it could be more. (And that’s sad. At the last meeting of Knight Ridder editorial page editors in January 2005, the two people I remember being most impressed by were the two Philly editors, Chris Satullo of the Inquirer and Frank Burgos of the Daily News. Both are out now; Chris has stayed with the paper as a columnist, but Frank left.)
But then, I’m just guessing, too. The one thing I do know is that it was weird.
That is part of the problem. Does one base one’s decision on the past McCain honesty, and his previous policies. Or does one look at his present dishonest adds, and the present and immediately past statements? Does one look at Obama’s admitted mistakes in his youth, and at various people with whom he has associated (what he knew about them at the time was unclear), or does one look at his current promises and immediate past decisions?
If (and it’s a HUGE if in my opinion) The State endorses Obama, I will be very interested to hear what the impact is on newspaper subscriptions.
“Those two thoughts — faith in McCain’s essential integrity and disappointment over the way he’s conducted his campaign — CAN be reconciled”
By someone who doesn’t want to see the truth. Did you see the news about McCain hiring Warren Tompkins to take a look at North Carolina? You know what that means. McCain has lost every shred of integrity in this campaign. He has embraced every political hack who smeared his family in SC in 2000. Shameful.
Those two thoughts can be reconciled just the same as one can reconcile the fact that Obama is a transformational, post-racial figure with the fact that he sat in the Rev. Wright’s church for all those years.
Remember, I like BOTH of these guys, which means I’m able to reconcile BOTH sets of seemingly disparate thoughts. And folks who are all one way or the other have trouble understanding that. One reason I did those long, involved columns the last couple of weeks is to help people understand how one person can have a perception of each of these candidates that goes far deeper than the simplistic views that the respective campaigns tend to foster. (Could the person who wrote this have a low opinion of Obama? Could the person who wrote this have a low opinion of McCain?)
There are too many people who either like Obama and therefore cling to every negative impression they can find about McCain, or like McCain and therefore seize upon every flaw they can find in Obama.
I like both, and see flaws in both. But seeing the flaws doesn’t turn me against them.
I know you don’t believe this, but this would have been a difficult endorsement decision for me even if I were the only person on the editorial board. Since I’m not, it was all that much harder. The way we’re choosing to present this (a definite editorial, but a dissenting column) is a reflection of that. And remember, I decided to present it that way BEFORE we decided which one to go with.
When I go vote (and deciding whom to vote for is slightly different from deciding whom to endorse, but the two sometimes coincide), I will do so with great respect for the candidate I don’t vote for. I think that in this race — which I still consider to be win-win, as I said in January — more people ought to be able to do that. But I’m afraid that too few will.
Those two thoughts — faith in McCain’s essential integrity and disappointment over the way he’s conducted his campaign — CAN be reconciled – Brad
Yes, they can be reconciled and Christopher Buckley explains in his endorsement of Obama, “This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic.”
Brad, this is the FIRST time I’ve seen you even hint at the nefarious and gutter tactics of McCain. He appears to want the presidency so badly, he has sacrificed his integrity. That reveals a great deal about character that may not have been apparent in his “mavericky” interaction with reporters.
The main reason white liberals like former journalists like Obama is that Obama is non-white, and they want to be part of putting anyone who is not a white male into the White House.
Obama is totally unqualified.
He gets a free pass from the media on everything:
* His admitted drug abuse.
* His 10 years of no record of school or jobs.
* No work achievement
* No political achievement
Says he was for his and against that, but never worked to pass legislation.
* lots of racist friends
* his racism
* lots of communist friends
* his socialist agenda in his speeches.
* his Muslim education
* his Muslim sponsorship
* huge illegal contributions from Palestine, Kuwait, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Obama says maybe Bush should be put on trial in The Hague
Couldn’t the Inquirer’s schizophrenic endorsement just be another symptom of the polarization of the country–that perhaps someone on the editorial board just couldn’t stomach the idea of endorsing their preferred candidate’s opponent? It would be perfectly in line with the vitriol and vehemence that has been showing up on both sides of the campaign–more from supporters than from the campaigns themselves. I fear the tendency to view the opposition party as an enemy (rather than as an opponent) more than I fear governance by either party.
Brad supports McCain 2000 and just accepts the fact that McCain 2008 has to do despicable things in order to get elected so he can go back to being McCain 2000 afterward. The end justifies the means.
Except when McCain loses badly in two weeks he’s going to be wondering where he goes to get his reputation back. He’ll be toast politically and relegated to sitting on the back porch of his Sedona mansion wondering why nobody calls him Maverick any more.
To put these newspaper endorsements in perspective:
“Editor and Publisher” is keeping a running total of major newspaper endorsements this fall. The press is often accused of being way left of the nation as a whole but it is interesting to note that according to E&P’s count in 2004, Kerry received 213 endorsements to Bush’s 205, pretty much reflecting the closeness of the popular vote, albeit tweaked a tiny bit in the other direction.
However, there is no such close count this year. As of this moment, the count is 124 to 46 in favor of Obama.
Most interestingly, 4 papers that endorsed Kerry in 2004 are now endorsing McCain, but 27 papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 are now endorsing Obama.
Divisiveness is losing; the kind of rhetoric that says you are less American based on your political beliefs, that is losing too. Hate is losing, fear is losing, hope is winning. Michelle Bachmann is losing (maybe not her seat in the House, but her vile hatred is losing ground nationally); Sarah Palin’s views on who is American and who is not are being rejected nationally…
lastly, John McCain’s embrace of all that he once condemned, well, that’s losing too.
If McCain’s kind of “unity” is what you envision for this country, Brad, you can have it, along with the shredded remains of your vaunted Unparty rhetoric. The rest of us have moved on.
“One can reconcile the fact that Obama is a transformational, post-racial figure with the fact that he sat in the Rev. Wright’s church for all those years.”
Nope, Brad, sorry, that’s not true. One can ignore Obama sitting in Wright’s church all those years and crown him a post-racial figure, but that mantle doesn’t fit. Wright’s tempests from the pulpit indicate that Obama is not post-racial, as do his positions, his voting record, and the percentage of the black electorate who have cast votes for him.
What makes Obama look post-racial is the white folks his campaign uses as props behind him when he’s speaking. He makes a point of hanging out with white people. He wants white votes.
“Deciding whom to vote for is slightly different from deciding whom to endorse, but the two sometimes coincide.”
Please explain how the two might not coincide. Seems to me that endorsing one person and voting for other must necessarily be disingenuous.
The Inquirer simply does not want to be labeled as a racist rag, run by rich white establishment guys. Since when did it become so hard to decide who to vote for? Or endorse?
“What followed was not only a differing opinion, but one seemingly based on alternative interpretations of reality.” … telling, in itself.
MCain, for all his foibles, is an honest man. Obama has not proven himself to be. His hubris is frightening.
One more thing, Brad: I look forward to reading your dissenting column endorsing McCain. Unless, that is, your publisher has more sense than the rest of the paper makes it seem.
Well, maybe while Obama is in Hawaii, he can bring back a certified copy or two of his birth certificate… or maybe not.
* Lee’s asterisks mean ditto for George W. Bush.
A liberal Democrat, Orson Scott Card on the Fannie/Freddie melt-down, and the media cover up:
“Would the last honest reporter please turn on the lights?”
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.
… read the article
Wright’s tempests from the pulpit indicate that Obama is not post-racial, as do his positions, his voting record, and the percentage of the black electorate who have cast votes for him. – pm
Wright’s actions reflects on Obama? So Obama was a member of the church ONLY because of his belief in Wright? It had nothing to do with the fellowship of the congregation, the missionary work of the church programs, and a call to follow Jesus?
Wright is a man. Jesus didn’t preach about following any other man. He preached faith in action and a pious life. Jesus also “palled around” with tax collectors and prostitutes which angered the pharises.
A person’s faith shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as some racial act, pm.
Also, to what “positions” and “record” do you refer? Give some specifics. If you are going to taint someone as being racial (or “post-racial”), you can atleast provide some evidence aside from a Rush the bigot Limbaugh talking point.
Brad – Thanks for the inside-baseball dope on how the print media are supposed to work and don’t always.
Faith? What on God’s green Earth does Wright preaching hate have to do with faith? Absolutely nothing.
How is Obama listening to Wright’s anti-white rhetoric, even anti-American rhetoric, post-racial? Wright and his congregation are racial to an extreme.
And, to answer all your questions with a question, what’s the primary concern, spreading salvation or spreading the wealth? That covers his record, his positions (let’s not spend money on defense; let’s just take it from those who worked for it and give it to those who won’t), and the supposed faith of someone who voted for infanticide in Illinois.
Kare Mcleod’s quote, “If (and it’s a HUGE if in my opinion) The State endorses Obama, I will be very interested to hear what the impact is on newspaper subscriptions.” was very interesting considering The State is Columbia’s newspaper and the city and Richland County are overwhelmingly Democratic strongholds. Mark my words; Barack Obama will win Richland County by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. He may lose Lexington County by a similar margin, but Richland has a much larger population. Might I remind the poster that every county-wide elected office holder in Richland County is a Democrat. Please don’t overestimate the limited power Republicans have in our city.
^ Sorry, that was Doug Ross’ quote above.
Only Brad would know for sure, but my guess is that the demographics of The State’s subscriber base would not be the same as the demographics of Richland County. I’m fairly certain that the typical State reader is older, white, better educated, higher income, and more likely to be conservative than the typical Richland County resident.
Again, it’s only an educated guess, but I suspect there will be a backlash from some members of that community if The State endorses Obama.
I just think it would be interesting to hear if there are a lot of “cancel my subscription” calls in the week following that type of endorsement. It would speak more about the people canceling the subscriptions than about The State.
That’s right, Matt, Richland County is blue country. As we are often reminded, the red-blue divide in this country is not really state vs. state: it’s cities, places of higher density population, vs. more sparsely populated areas and much of suburbia.
Meanwhile, I may have spoken too soon when I said that Michelle Bachmann’s seat in the House is safe. Seems that the national distaste for McCarthyism may yet come around to bite Rep. Bachmann.
My gosh, the Philly paper’s pro-McCain rebutal was just plain wierd. It totally ignores reality. McCain has been so eradic in the campaign and continues to run this bizarre smear campaign that it just bogles the mind. How anyone can just dismiss all of this is beyond me.
Let’s be crystal clear on one thing about Obama: the whole Rev. Wright nonsense. For Catholics to continue to go after Obama on this while they sit in the pews listening to hypocritical priests and bishops who allowed the disgusting pedophilia scandal to continue unabatted just makes me sick. Shame on Brad and others for their flagrant hypocrisy of continuing to slam Obama while supporting the vile Catholic Church for their criminal behavior.
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.
The nerve of the GOP scoundrels spending $150k to outfit Caribou Barbie. So much for identifying with Joe Sixpack and his soccer mom wife. This party has become the waste, fraud, deceipt and smears. They have nothing to offer working class Americans yet continue to spout this neo-con trickle down nonsense. How can anyone take them seriously anymore. This from the USA Today:
Sarah Palin’s $150,000 clothing spree turns heads left and right
By Olivia Barker, USA TODAY
The total bill might make Joe Six-Pack spew his brew, but to image experts, the $150,000 that the Republican National Committee has spent on wardrobing Sarah Palin since she was tapped as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate isn’t shocking — in fact, it’s arguably necessary.
“When you think about costumes for literally every day of the week, for a couple-month period, it’s not outrageous,” says Susan Scafidi, who teaches fashion law at Fordham Law School. As long as the outfits are worn for campaigning only and not for personal use, it’s a “perfectly legal” item on the RNC budget, Scafidi says. (The clothing is destined for charity post-election, according to the McCain campaign.)
Wow. Democrats are not just the party of hate; they’re the party of envy, too.
Biden’s’ been talking about an international crisis coming if his own running mate gets elected, and the Democrat lemmings are grousing about Palin wearing nice clothes.
And, Matt, what makes you think the Democrats in Richland County could 1) actually read or 2) afford to subscribe to The State?
I mean, aren’t the first five or 10 minutes of the WIS 11 O’Clock Report the Democrat news hour?
Richland County is like a whirlpool, sucking money from the rest of the state. The human equivalent of carp and catfish come here to grab the scraps left by the politically powerful, just like D.C. has no industry excepted peddling influence and cashing government checks.
Which party has attendees yelling “kill him” (referencing Obama) at their rallies. In a recent campaign rally BOTH people attending asked McCain about Obama’s Muslim faith.
Here’s a nice article in the Chicago Tribune about McCain’s “palling around” with a convicted, and unrepentent felon, G. Gordon Liddy.
Brad, do you know if it’s possible to install an “Ignore” button in your blog? Even as a registered Republican and a McCain/Palin supporter… I am finding it more and more tiring to have to constantly scroll past Lee Muller’s constant whining and bitching.
With his current attitude, I’m beginning to think he’s misspelling his occupation… he states he’s an “economist”, I’m starting to believe “pessimist” is more of a reality. Lee take a Midol please!!!
Obama lied again about McCain supporters.
Secret Service reports: No One Shouted ‘Kill Him’ About Obama …
Secret Service: No One Shouted ‘Kill Him’ at
Anonymous Bill C,
if you want a FACT filter, why don’t you ask Anonymous Bud where he gets his hate messages?
Or just tune in to Obama Cult Radio on AM 1230.
If you come here, you expose yourself to facts and new ways of thinking, of yourself as an individual with dignity, instead of a “human resource” to provide tax revenue to your superior leaders.
“Divisiveness is losing…Hate is losing, fear is losing, hope is winning.”
I honestly have to chuckle at statements like this.
Divisiveness is losing? How so? I guess a 50% showing in the polls at the highest is a mandate that divisiveness is fading away? Not quite sure what math you’re using, Phillip, but my textbook would lead me to believe that a 50/50 split is just about as divisive as you can get.
Hate is losing? I guess you mean like this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI)
Or do you only mean as long as one side is silenced that hate is losing? Because that’s exactly what Obama and the Democrats want to do with the fairness doctrine if they get into office; silence the dissenting side in the name of “fairness.”
Fear is losing? I guess you mean like Biden’s comments the other day about the world testing Obama if he gets elected? If Bush or a Republican had made a similar comment it would have been called “the politics of fear,” yet Biden gets a pass. I honestly see no difference between Biden’s comments earlier this week and the battle that Bush has been fighting against the terrorists for the past eight years, yet it’s okay for Biden to say, “Trust us. It’s going to look like we don’t know what we’re doing, but you need to ‘gird your loins’.”
Hope is winning? Whose hope, may I ask? Your hope? Bud’s hope? At most, 50% of America’s hope? I’m sorry, but that’s not an overwhelming majority there, Phillip. The problem with hedging your bets on hope is that we all have different hopes. My hope is most certainly different from your hope. It’s a pretty good bet that your hope is somewhat different from Bud’s hopes. So whose hope, may I ask, is winning?
I don’t begrudge the fact that you are totally in Obama’s camp. More power to you, but these sweeping generalizations that you and other Obama supporters make (and likewise on McCain’s side too) are just laughable. Your words, as well as Obama’s, ring hollow in light of reality. Buzz words and catch phrases can make you feel all warm and fuzzy in the short term, but it wears off really quickly.
Lee… bud would be the first person I would “ignore”, you’d be the second.
What facts are giving you so much trouble, Bill C? I am here to help you.
The fact that I get tired of reading your same bitching and moaning.
The fact that you have a chip on your shoulder about something and think the rest of the readers care to know what that is.
“The nerve of the GOP scoundrels spending $150k to outfit Caribou Barbie.”
One-word question for you, Bud…So?
First, it’s not like this is taxpayer money. You’d have a case in my book if it were. Campbell Brown (who can hardly be considered friendly to the Right) wrote a good piece on this today. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/campbell.brown.looks/index.html
Second, do you seriously believe that Obama and his family haven’t received similar perks from the Democratic coffers during the course of their campaign? And if they have I say the same thing…so what?
It’s quite common for people in the public eye to receive a stipend for clothing. When it’s one of the highest elected positions in the world, and since American’s are so into image, I think $150k is quite reasonable. This is the biggest non-story out there.
We understand that you have nothing but contempt for Palin and her beliefs, but this line of argument is unbecoming even for you, Bud.
“Which party has attendees yelling “kill him” (referencing Obama) at their rallies.”
I don’t know, Bud, which party is it? Is there a party out there holding anti-Obama rallies that I don’t know about? I mean, I know you’re not talking about the Republicans because I’m sure you would be smart enough to check your facts before posting something like this.
“Which party has attendees yelling ‘kill him’ (referencing Obama) at their rallies?”
Check your facts, bud. The only person who heard “kill him” at the rally where “kill him” was supposedly heard was the reporter who wrote the story about it.
Google and learn, bud. Your party is a Mulligan stew of liars, illegal aliens, beggars and innocents who don’t check their facts.
“Deciding whom to vote for is slightly different from deciding whom to endorse, but the two sometimes coincide.”
Rephrasing the question, Brad: How could you recommend I vote for someone and then vote for someone else yourself?
Bill C, it sounds like you have a PERSONAL problem. All can we can help you with is the facts. You should talk to a priest, minister or other professional about personal anger issues.
Speaking of issues, shift your focus. Try getting your mind on real issues of importance to America.
Cult Obama is not just the opponent of John McCain. The cult leaders are enemies of America. Listen to their speeches. Read their writings. Look at their acts of violent terrorism. They aren’t of monolithic beliefs, but united in their desire to destroy America, free enterprise, individual liberty and religious freedom. And if they can get rich robbing FNMA and FMAC in the process, they are all for that, too.
Doug had me there right up until he blew it in his closing sentence: A backlash against The State for endorsing Obama would say more about the people who react than it would about The State.
No it wouldn’t…it would be ALL about The State taking a dumb position in support of the wrong candidate, and the response of readers would be predictable.
N’est ce pas?
From a Sarah Palin interview on the topic of illegal immigration:
Q: Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?
A:I don’t know, I don’t know. That’s a good question.
Q: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
A: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.
Q: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
A: No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.
Q: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
Aside from the butchered syntax and incoherence, doesn’t the content concern you Republicans?
A vote for McCain (and Graham) is a vote for amnesty and for ignoring the laws that control our borders. Keep that in mind. Not to say it will be any better with Obama… but this seems to be one of those areas where Republicans are willing to hold their noses when they pull the lever for McCain.
Man after taking such a beating from p.m. then to have to agree with him. (p.m. is wrong on his points but that’s for another time) Now that’s tough. What kind of stupid comment is that Brad. If you endorse someone then it seems self-evident that you would also vote for that candidate. You are waaaaaaaay over thinking this endorsement stuff. Just tell us who you think will make the better president and why. Anyone can make an endorsement. Just because it appears in a publication generated by an expensive printing process doesn’t change what it is, that is, a preference of who the State’s editorial board (or a majority at least) believes will be the best POTUS.
That’s why the socialistic media is avoiding the immigration issue – they hope that either Obama or McCain will continue to invite in hordes of illegals. Obama promises to do more , but he promises more of everything to the riff raff. Who can tell?
Illegal immigration is the greatest threat to our economy, and plays a large role in the current credit crisis. HUD reports that 5,000,000 illegal aliens bought houses with junk mortgages created by the Democrats.
Reader backlash to an Obama endorsement would not only be predictable, it would be ENTIRELY predictable and well deserved.
Drudge has been running a link to a piece showing how badly ratings have tanked during. this campaign for NBC, CBS and ABC. They have completely prostituted themselves for Obama.
The State may find a similar reaction among its’ diminishing fan club.
Lee – I’m the one with the problem? You’re the one with obvious signs of OCD. You’re obsessed with this election and from what I can tell your only solution is to complain. I don’t have anger issues, but thank you for inquiring. I’m not the angry one in this discussion, you appear to be a very negative person… I’m probably not the first person to tell you that.
For whatever reason, you started in your Obama bashing drivel again… which I ignored. Just so you’ll be clear on the matter, I don’t care about Obama, I will not be voting for him, don’t have his sign in my yard, etc… so take your rant elsewhere.
Bill C, what do you care if I am obsessed with keeping what little liberty we have left, and working to restore America to a Constitutional form of limited government?
You claimed to be a Republican, but you defend Obama’s support by communists, anarchists, terrorists, black separatists and other racists. You want to talk about anything but Obama’s philosophy and agenda.
Like most of Obama’s campaign donors, you don’t use your real name, either.
bud, I have a responsibility to consider opinions other than my own in endorsement decisions, so while I vote more than 90 percent of the time a straight State ticket, I have on occasions broken with our position in my personal votes. I don’t think I’ve done it in the last couple of election cycles, but I have done it. Generally that reflects my having lost the endorsement argument, but I’ve also gone along with an endorsement as being right and consistent and logical for the newspaper, but made a different decision in the voting booth.
For instance, there should be no doubt whatsoever in anyone’s mind that I did NOT vote along with my newspaper when it endorsed W. over McCain in 2000…
Of course, that was one of those where I lost the argument.
Lee, please give me an example of where I’ve defended or supported Barak Obama. Is it with the McCain/Palin sign in my front yard? Is it with my McCain bumper sticker on my vehicle?
I don’t use my FULL name online, because there are strange, obsessed people like you who would find their way to my front door. I get enough of that with the Mormans and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are all true good Republicans using their real and full names on this blog? Are you? Out of curiosity I did a Google search and I came up with nothing for a professional economist by the name of Lee Muller… so who are you really?
Bill C, if you are afraid to sign your name, for fear of physical violence, what does that tell you about the Obama campaign?
I think it’s funny how, when you were saying that I lack the “credentials” to express my opinion at the very time when you mistook me for Lee Muller Thomas, a member of Ronald Reagan’s cabinet. What kind of Republican are you?
Meanwhile, the fight to defeat the racist socialist of Obama continues without you.
Nice. I ask a question twice, but only when bud asks it, too, does Brad actually respond.
That tells me more than I really wanted to know, but Brad still didn’t really answer my question.
Any dang fool would understand that one member of a four- or five-member editorial board might not vote the way the board endorsed if the board outvoted him making its endorsement.
But Brad originally wrote: “Deciding whom to vote for is slightly different from deciding whom to endorse, but the two sometimes coincide.”
I suppose Brad felt this response to Bud somewhat sorted that out: “I’ve also gone along with an endorsement as being right and consistent and logical for the newspaper, but made a different decision in the voting booth.”
Which leaves the original question, more or less: Why would Brad think the newspaper should endorse one candidate when Brad planned to vote for another?
The two obvious answers are: 1) Well, we have to endorse the way most papers endorse, else we’ll look stupid to our comrades in newsprint chicanery; and 2) We have to endorse in such a way as to create the biggest profit margin for the newspaper.
But, who knows? There may be other considerations, too. I do wish Brad would spell them out.
Who here uses their full name… Brad, you and Doug Ross. Are you telling me that there are only 3 true Republicans on this blog?
I never mistook you for Lee Muller Thomas, I asked sarcastically if this was you because this was the only person that showed up with any credentials that could be associated with someone with the credentials you supposedly have. Since you aren’t that person, I’m finding that you are so insignificant in real life that you don’t even come up in a Google search. I obviously can’t find anything about you, so why don’t you tell us who you are, come on Lee… introduce yourself.
Let’s see when Reagan was in office, I was in my early 20’s… not exactly caring who was in who’s cabinet. Passing my next test, getting drunk and getting laid were my three biggest concerns at the time.
I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Republican party. I may have voted for some Republicans in the past but not since I woke up and realized that there is little difference between the parties. Democrat politicians are corrupt individually and Republican politicians are corrupt collectively. There are a few good ones out there (the ones with libertarian tendencies) but they are few and far between.
And Bill, there are at least a half dozen others who comment on Brad’s blog using their full names. Herb, Karen, James McCallister — not a Republican in that bunch.
Your attitude is what I find so bizarre: I am afraid to use my real name with my opinions because someone might do some harm to me because of it. Really? Is that the world you live in?
If Bill C is afraid now, wait until Obama imposes his racist fascist socialism.
Tim, chuckle all you want, but the tone will change. Oh sure, there will be some bickering, some divisiveness. But these will not be employed as official devices of the executive branch.
The main change is that we will not be hearing about what parts of the country or what political persuasions are more “pro-American” or less-American. That garbage will be over.
Tim, we may not agree on a lot of issues but I’m sure you love this country as much as I do. No party or political ideology has a monopoly on patriotism. That’s what I’m talking about. That is the big theme coming out of this election.
And Tim, you’re right that at most Obama will have 52%, 53%. But the divisiveness is about what happens AFTER the election. To me, the signs point to a greater chance that Obama reaches across the political divide: he’s had to in order to have a chance to win this election. We’re not guaranteed an end to this divisiveness to be sure, but Obama seems like the man to give us a chance to leave it behind. McCain used to seem like that, but not so much anymore. Pity.
Lee, what am I supposed to be afraid of now? I forgot.
Doug, so what you’re saying doesn’t go step-in-step with what Lee is saying… that being only true Republicans use their full name on this blog. That those hateful Obama supporters are the ones hiding behind false and hidden names.
I’ve used my real name before, some wack-job (which I’m going to compare to Lee Muller) disagreed with me, wrote me several ranting e-mails about how I didn’t now my head from a hole in the lower posterior part of my body, For two weeks I was getting calls at 2:00 – 5:00 a.m., from “unknown” numbers and my boss even got a copy of the argument in an e-mail. The time stamps in the discussion were all after hours and there was nothing in there on the subject that I wouldn’t have said in front of him. This is why I don’t use my real name, because if you Google it, you will find out who I am, where I live, who my family members and friends are, where I work, who my associates are, etc… All it takes is one raving lunatic who disagrees with you to start raising hell, because he probably doesn’t have much else to do in his life… which reminds me, doesn’t Lee Muller spend an awful lot of time posting on here everyday? One would think a professional economist would have more work than he could handle these days. I’ve been here more today than I have total in the past. So that’s why you will only see me here as “Bill C.”. For an FYI – the disagreement was in a football forum and the disagreement was over a call. Now you explain to me why my boss needed to receive a copy of that… Now ends MY rant.
If Obama, Pelosi and the other radicals are not going to launch an attack on middle-class America, why do they keep threatening tax increases, gun confiscation, dictates on what automobiles people can drive, forced participation in government medical plans, and more federal control of every program?
If Obama is not radical, or any more liberal than Bush and McCain, why not vote for McCain, who is a known entity with a track record?
Before Lee Muller has an orgasm over a minor mistake in my last post, in the last paragraph that should read… “I’ve used my full name”.
Bill, you need to spend less time obsessing on trivia and personal issues, and try to discuss a genuine political issue, and only the issue, not the messengers of facts and opinions you cannot debate.
Lee, thank you for your opinion. Want my opinion… find a life away from your computer screen.
At times, posting on this blog is like sticking your hand in a meat grinder but better pulling back a nub than being denied the right to express your opinion.
One point to make about the Palin interview re: illegal immigrants. How would she know how many illegals are in Alaska? Is each state required to keep a count of exactly how many reside there? Think about it, if an accurate count can be made, wouldn’t we know how to locate, detain, and deport them a little more efficiently than we do now?
Palin should have asked the interviewer if he or she knew how many are in Alaska or their own home state. Fact is that all we can do is make a guesstimate about the number and the range seems to be from 12 to 20 million. Her answer was actually on the money.
How do we manage to identify, round up, and deport 12 to 20 million illegals? What are the logistics and costs involved? Where do we keep them? Who will be in charge of the roundup? What is the answer to the problem and how do we stem the tide? Anyone have a rock solid solution? If so, contact Washington.
We tried amnesty one time before and look where we are now. Both parties look to the illegals as a potential voting block so think about what their agenda really is.
I don’t pretend to have the answers and obviously, neither does anyone else. But to try to trip Sarah Palin up with a ridiculous question serves no purpose either. Like her or not, agree or disagree, but asking a “gotcha” question that no one else can answer either is total BS. At least try to be reasonably fair.
I have my own take on Palin but suffice it to say, it would bother me if she were to become the president if anything should happen to McCain during his first term.
Bart, you are absolutely right about Palin not knowing how many illegal aliens are in Alaska.
The difference is that liberal Democrats don’t care.
It is interesting that Bear Stearns, which went bankrupt financing junk mortgages for illegal aliens, did a detailed study on their market, and determined that in 2005, there were 30,000,000 illegal aliens in the US at any given time.
During the mortage bailout talks, HUD officials testified that 5,000,000 illegal aliens had obtained mortgages under the Democrat’s junk loan programs backed by FNMA and FMAC.
Clarification on prior post. The numbers 12 to 20 million apply to a national estimate, not Alaska. Just wanted to avoid comments from lapidating nitpickers over a minor oversight.
I am in complete agreement with you about not using my full name, etc. when posting on a blog. It is one thing to use your name in a letter to the local newspaper but on the internet, not no, but hell no.
I may not agree with you or others on issues but no way, no how will I take the chance of some nut job creating havoc with my personal life and family. When someone calls you a coward or implies cowardice by not posting your real name, look out!
“…but the tone will change. Oh sure, there will be some bickering, some divisiveness. But these will not be employed as official devices of the executive branch.”
Let’s just say that I’m not holding my breath. While I understand that you probably see this current administration as being divisive, I don’t see it changing with the next administration. If it does change, I don’t believe that it’s going to be any less, just in a new direction. I see a new era of class warfare just ramping up. We’ve beat the tax issue to death, but I don’t see any unity coming out of Obama’s tax plan of taking from the rich and “spreading the wealth around.” If anything I think it breeds contempt between rich and poor. So while I hope you’re right, in reality I think you just have some wishful thinking.
“The main change is that we will not be hearing about what parts of the country or what political persuasions are more “pro-American” or less-American. That garbage will be over.”
For sure that’s been an unfortunate element of the present campaign (whether unintentionally insinuated or an outright accusation), but I have never heard someone in the current administration make that charge. Maybe you can point out to me where someone has, but whenever I’ve heard this from someone before and asked for an example, the person has never been able to produce one.
“But the divisiveness is about what happens AFTER the election. To me, the signs point to a greater chance that Obama reaches across the political divide: he’s had to in order to have a chance to win this election. We’re not guaranteed an end to this divisiveness to be sure, but Obama seems like the man to give us a chance to leave it behind.”
Obama has had to reach across the aisle in his own party in order to create unity, which is something totally different than uniting the entire country. And if Factcheck.org is to be believed, Obama’s never really had a convincing example of having to reach across the aisle on major legislation either. The only times where he’s gotten bipartisan support (aka unity) is legislation that was a no-brainer. McCain, on the other hand (and for better or worse depending on who you ask), has a myriad of examples of “unifying” both sides of the aisle.
You and I are certainly unified in love of country, but I highly doubt we’ll ever be unified in how to actually run it. To be quite frank, I believe your philosophy of government is irreconcilable with what our Founding Fathers intended for this country, and I’m sure you probably think the same of me. However, that of course doesn’t mean that we can’t be civil with each other (and is one of the main reasons you’ve gained my utmost respect in the short time that I’ve been visiting Brad’s blog despite our obvious disagreements). If that’s what you mean by the by the end of divisiveness (aka being civil) then I certainly join in your hopes, but realistically I don’t think the Lee’s, Bud’s, Michael Moore’s, or Rush Limbaugh’s of this nation are going to go away magically just because Obama is sitting in the oval office.
Brad, Lee is alienating many of your new visitors. I doubt Muller is his actual last name so he doesn’t meet the threshold for posting sans censoring.
About 4 of us regulars who are not water carriers for the neocons nor Limblaugh Ditto Heads have learned to deal with him. These others are learning the hard way that DJJ allows inmates access to the computer periodically.
Brad Warthen asked us to use our real names.
Since he had already sent my real name, e-mail address and phone number to about 20 rabid socialistic liberals, I figured I might as well.
In fact, several of those compassionate, tolerant Democrats wasted no time in threatening me and spamming my e-mail, all of which are criminal offenses, so they no longer post here.
Randy E, if you could discuss the issues, you would. Personal insults are the best small minds can muster, and I truly feel sorry for you. I hope you grow up.