Finally, I’m wrapping up my day. It’s been a long one, but I’m reasonably pleased.
Today, Warren and I completed the rest of the endorsement package — my explanatory column, and his column dissenting from the McCain endorsement. I’m reasonably pleased with what I was able to do and still keep my column to a normal length, instead of my double-length pieces last week and the week before.
But I’m even more pleased with Warren’s column, which gives readers a fuller picture of the range of opinions on the board. I’ll post it on the blog Sunday along with my own.
Together, the four elements — the endorsement editorial itself, my column about the process, Warren’s dissent, and the discussions we’ve already had here on the blog and will continue to have — present a fuller and more thought-provoking package than you will find in the endorsement of any newspaper in the country. I’m quite proud of it.
As I’ve said so many times before, the point of an endorsement is to help the reader think more deeply about his decision. Whether you agree with us in the end or not, my hope is always that your vote will be better thought-out, more fully contemplated and informed, because of having read the endorsement. In that regard, I believe this package, considered as a whole, accomplishes the goal far better than usual.
When you’re done looking at all of this (and I hope you will), you’ll have a much better idea of where we’re coming from, and be better equipped to decide what you think in light of it, than, say, the confusing package put out by the Philly paper the other day, for instance. Not to cast aspersions (perish the thought).
That would have made a nice endorsement for McCain eight years ago– back when he made some sense. But in his run for president, I believe he sold out his values in order to get elected.
In the editorial, you didn’t address McCain’s colossal lack of judgment in selecting Palin for VP, and the nightmarish scenario of her ascending to the White house if anything were to happen. That alone should have been reason not to endorse him.
It’s a real shocker that Warren is supporting Obama.
Mark G, welcome to the club. Several of us have been howling about this.
Given the national polling about her, the crescendo of discontent among conservative writers, and the pure factual accounts like her repeated misinterpretation of the Constitution in terms of VP responsibilities we’re all bewildered at his willful nescience.
What do you expect? The State is a SOUTH CAROLINA newspaper. I can’t even imagine the uproar which would occur had they endorsed Obama, people would probably boycott the paper. The endorsement will make conservatives happy. The fact is that when you live in a Republican stronghold like South Carolina, voting for a democratic presidential candidate is like throwing your ballot in the trashcan, that’s how the great electoral college works. Personally, I would rather throw my ballot in the trash then vote for a McCain/Palin ticket, and there’s always that 1% chance enough democrats turn out and the race is actually tight in SC.
This endorsement, while disappointing, is definitely not surprising.
That was one heck of a sentence. Keep practicing the writing thing; it’s bound to improve.
With a twenty point lead in SC, I don’t believe your paper’s editorial endorsement of McCain will turn enough people against him to lose it. However, I am concerned about some of the down ballot races. Was this an intentional, but subtle, effort to cut into his lead and bring down other Republican candidates?
I’m looking forward to Warren’s rebutal to the State’s one-issue endorsement. Too bad the State newspaper is so predictable. They certainly offer nothing in the way of insight other than this constant harping on why our expensive occupation of Iraq is a good thing. We get it already, the editorial board thinks this occupation thing is good. No need to keep on about it. Why would support of that issue be of any use in helping the voter?
John S. McCain , an unstable man for unstable times. He’s not a maverick he’s a weathervane.
bud, before you read the rest of the package Sunday, I suggest you go read the endorsement again, so you can get past that one-issue thing. It dealt with, or at least touched on, free trade, checks and balances, organized labor, immigration, campaign finance reform, and general ability to manage challenges across the globe. Quite a bit for an 11-inch piece.
I believe that on a previous post you complained that too much space was devoted to Colombian free trade — or was that someone else? I don’t see how you can turn around and say “one-issue” now. The Colombian issue bears upon which candidate can think past the mindless orthodoxies of his own party, free trade, our relationship with Venezuela, the war on drugs, and the Monroe Doctrine, plus some others I’m probably not thinking of at the moment.
On the judicial appointments, if I’d had space, I would have gotten more into something that really bothered me in that last debate — Obama equating the inferred “right to privacy” with the expressed right to free speech (and the press, and religion) in the Constitution, and setting up the straw man of claiming McCain wants to have “referendums” on said “right.” Wanting something to go back to the political branches — where it belongs — does not equate, in a republic, to wanting “referenda.”
Another thing that has bothered me about Obama, but which I haven’t heard him express overtly enough to include it in an editorial, is the strong implication (he exhibited it in the epilogue of his book dealing with his time in law school) and in the third debate — that he judges court decisions on the POLICY outcomes, rather than whether the legal reasoning was sound. For someone who would lead a society governed by rule of law, that’s disturbing.
For me, the multiple problems with Obama solely on judicial appointments would be enough to prefer McCain.
To show you the contrast, if you go back and look at the much-maligned 2004 endorsement of Bush, THAT one was about Iraq — and of course what that implied about the conduct of war and peace and foreign affairs overall.
This endorsement was as different from that one as night and day.
Obama was a member of the New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Party newspapers contain photos and speeches by Barack Obama at socialist conventions.
If Brad Warthen would let us post pictures, I would post the scans of the newspapers. Right now, I am working them up into a PDF file to put on a web site which will remain up and active until Barack Obama is driven from office, any office.
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America.” He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
Since Brad’s blog breaks my links, I am breaking them into multiple lines. If you restore them to one line, you can get to Obama’s speeches and articles in the New Ground newsletter.
I thought the poll you ran yesterday was fascinating. It showed that there’s a “new South” emerging in NC and VA– a South that is more independent in its thinking.
Conservative votes in NC and VA were wiling to acknowledge that Palin in not qualified to be president, and that McCain is really not a “maverick” any longer.
While in the “old South,” which still exists in SC, the majority of voters loyally cling to that old-style conservatism, whether right or wrong.
I think this endorsement reflects the way The State is clinging to the “old South” way of thinking.
In states where there is a strong educational base, and a more diverse economy, there is a more progressive way of thinking in both parties. More open mindedness in general.
But the old confederacy still clings to its old ways of voting– and newspapers often reflect their communities.
Luckily for our nation, the old South is less relevant to the presidential election than it has ever been.
Military voters back McCain 3 to 1.
“The [McFruitcake] endorsement will make conservatives happy.”
No it won’t.
Real conservatives won’t be happy for another four years — no matter which one gets himself elected this year. HOWEVER, either one will be the perfect mess, and we’ll offer up Ron Paul next time!
If this was 1972, The State would endorse Richard Nixon and neglect to mention Watergate and Vietnam.
Nixon won in a landslide because he ended the draft in 1972, just as he promised in 1968, to end the War in Vietnam begun by John F. Kennedy and escalated by Johnson, and grossly mismanaged by both of them.
Brad, you have demonstrated an ability to analyze legal issues that shows me that you consider the arguments of various legal scholars your paper’s liberal owners would never endorse. That being said, do you think there is a right of privacy in the U.S. constitution? Asked another way, do you believe there is a constitutional right of privacy in our land? If so, what does that mean, and who may or may not be protected by it?
There is an inherent right to privacy recognized in the Fourth Amendment, which requires due process of law to obtain a warrant for a reasonable search of a person, his dwellings, any other places he may be, and his papers.
Lee, I’m not sure the framers identified a thing called the right to privacy, and I think Brad has a pretty good perspective on the question. But before I start a campaign to name him our next Supreme Court justice, I’d like to hear his comment.
And Lee, what do you think about all the other things our activist courts have called a “right to privacy” that did not involve warrantless searches as clearly proscribed by the Fourth Amendment?
Those other rights to privacy were CREATED by the courts, and were flimsy excuses for the activities they were trying to suddenly make legal by legislating from the bench.
McCain meets the approval of The State?
My, oh, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same in my home state. Good luck “The State”. Turn a blind eye to McCain’s significant character flaws (wife cheating, scandals, temperment and intellectual curiosity, etc.). Turn a blind eye to his blatant lies, distortions, negativity and selection of the amusing Sarah Palin for VP.
McCain is a poor choice to endorse. You have not learned from your previous endorsement of the worst leader in modern American history. *sigh*
South Carolina, unfortunately, continues turning to the same old party with the same old failed solutions in hopes that they will now solve new problems. One reason we lag behind other other states academically and economically is our tendancy to disregard “lessons learned”. As I said earlier, the more things change, the more they stay the same. *chuckle* (note: disregard spelling/grammar errors…I’m in a rush and this PC does not have spell check)
Lee, I have to confess that Brad may have an understanding of this issue that is in accord with the vast majority of his readership. If that is the case, I must retract my previous anonymous posts suggesting that he is a long lost liberal. In fact, on the most critical issue involving the election of our next president – and that is the nomination of our next Supreme Court justices – I must now (with egg on my anonymous face) confess that Brad has the correct position. Sorry, Brad.
RE: “Scoop pup’s poop on dam’s walkway” [Ltrs to the editor 10/25/08].
How about leave the little crappers at home?
The Hartford Courant gets it in their endorsement of Obama; “Most worrisome, however, is Mr. McCain’s choice of a running mate, Sarah Palin, who is Not yet ready for prime time.”
Do tell, Randy E. — did you give a whit about this paper’s earlier endorsement:
Or are you picking and choosing? Do you actually LIVE in the South, Randy E.? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE if Brad would have stuck a rag in it [his unfettered ERA thoughts] and painted a favorable open-minded window of opportunity for another Democratic candidate? Like this one?
[the only logical caption for this photo would be, “I’d beat you and you know it…”]
Or, do you just dislike strong women — and Pastor Hagee?
Citing a Sept 23 article?
Hagee? what’s to dislike? I don’t let silly things like how he blamed gays in New Orleans for Katrina or how he believes me and my family are cult members.
As for the rest of your post, HUH?!
From the “Hartford [Something]…”
We Endorse Obama For President
INSPIRING, UNIFYING He would make the nation proud
October 26, 2008
“And yes, earlier we had endorsed a more experienced Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, for the primary.”
It’s buried in blurb #14 of the article!
We South Carolinians have a PROUD legacy of being on the wrong side of history. It seems fitting that our state’s newspaper of record should, once again, proudly carry the Torch of Confederate Stagnation with this unflinchingly predictable status quo endorsement.
Here’s the photo & full link in full, blazing technoid September 3rd 2008 English:
“The fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
John S. McCain
September 15, 2008
The fundamentals of our economy are strong – that is why we still have a +2.8 percent growth rate even after the revelations that the Democrats stole hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars from the taxpayers and gave it to unqualified blacks and Latinos for overpriced mortgages, in order to buy their votes.
If the Democrats continue borrowing trillions of dollars and monetizing the debt with fiat currency, we will soon be in an inflation that will make the Jimmy Carter economy look good, and it wasn’t good.
In the last two years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, they have run up more debt than the previous 6 years, which were inexcusable.
Fiat currency = bad.
Even Greenspan will admit [under duress] that we need to get back on the gold standard. Ron Paul is the only man on the planet with the gumption to yank us back, however painful it may be, to that era.
It’s like pulling a rotten tooth. Not pleasant, or very marketable at the time.
Get a grip, Lee Muller! Do you think any unqualified WHITES got in on the subprime handouts? Or was it just “blacks and latinos”? Hey, you forgot to slander the Asians.
I swear, it’s sane moderates like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell that are keeping “Conservatism” from veering permanently into the ditch as a historical sideshow of systematized denialism. Looks like it’s going to take an epic loss and a lot of soul-searching before Republicans of real vision finally decide to wrestle their base out of the Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity chokehold and steer it back toward the center.
Lee, your good ol’ boys had the White House for 8 years, and control of Congress for 6 of the last 8. Your good ol’ boys did a crap job. Your man Dubya just green-lighted an unprecedented government bailout, and your man McCain voted for it. Greenspan’s recent confessions to Congress included being “wrong”, “shocked”, and having an ideological “flaw”. You can do the ostrich thing, stick your head in the dirt, and DENY DENY DENY all you want, but it doesn’t change the prevailing national sentiment…or global sentiment for that matter…that sees a failed U.S. presidency, a stalled U.S. Congress, and a broken U.S. economy.
Drill, Baby, Drill….for more excuses.
This endorsement must be a joke, right? The State is just testing us to see if we’ll go along with their hilarious “endorsement”, right???
Watching the rallies today — you people HAVE to admit:
Barack Obama is an awesome speaker.
I just busted a gut on his calling John McCain W’s (God love him) “sidekick” and that there’s “not an inch of daylight” between the two of them.
Admit it. Whatever is said — wouldn’t you rather listen to Barack Obama say it for the next four years???
My husband recently returned from a conference which included a contingent of insurance actuaries. Based on their probability studies, a 72-year old man with three separate occurances of melanoma has a 75% chance of dying within three years. You betcha!
The problem I have with McCain, and by extension The State’s endorsement, is that the John McCain of the PRESENT historical moment does not seem to be a strong, inspiring leader, with a real vision for the future. The McCain of TODAY seems more like the vapid leftovers of a fractured Republican party.
These days McCain seems to be constantly buffeted by current events, lurching this way and that, always a few steps behind the news cycle. Watching his dyspeptic campaign gives me a very uneasy feeling that his executive management style as President would be just as incoherent. It’s all tactics. Where is the grand vision? We’ve seen stunts, smears, and Rovian issue-avoidance. Demonize liberals. Demonize the media. Salute the flag. Rinse. Repeat.
I understand that people who trend conservative will not want a Democratic President AND a Democratic Congress. But certainly we need a focused, disciplined leader who is capable of motivating the citizenry…especially the young people. I do not get the sense that McCain motivates or inspires even his own party.
For months, Americans have told the candidates their #1 issue of concern was the economy. But McCain and his campaign seem not to have realized the economy was crashing until AFTER a sober, humbled George W. Bush did. McCain is a decent man and a dedicated public servant. But do we really feel he is prepared for the future of a fast-moving world in a truly dynamic or strategic manner? Or that he has effectively demonstrated the ability to improvise, in recent moments of crisis, in ways that reassure and inspire?
A presidential campaign is an audition for the office of President. I am sorry to say that Mr. McCain has not run a very good campaign, and I do not think he should be selected for the position.
“I do not get the sense that McCain motivates or inspires even his own party.”
Indeed! — his early-stage dementia both unnerves and enrages me. At the same time! It’s quite obvious he would need a skilled handler 24/7. And Sarah Palin ain’t it! Matter of fact…I think he enrages her too!!!
Most of the subprime mortgage loans went to blacks and Latinos, including 5,000,000 illegal aliens, according to HUD testimony during the bailout hearings.
Black borrowers were 3.8 times more likely than whites to receive a higher-cost home loan, and Hispanic borrowers were 3.6 times more likely, according to a study released this month by a group of fair housing agencies.
“Blacks and Latinos have lower incomes and less wealth, less steady employment and lower credit ratings, so a completely neutral and fair credit-rating system would still give a higher percentage of subprime loans to minorities,” said Jim Campen, a University of Massachusetts economist who contributed to the study.
In greater Boston, 71 percent of blacks earning above $153,000 in 2005 took out mortgages with high interest rates, compared to just 9.4 percent of whites, while about 70 percent of black and Hispanic borrowers with incomes between $92,000 and $152,000 received high-interest rate home loans, compared to 17 percent for whites, according to his research.
“Whatever is said — wouldn’t you rather listen to Barack Obama say it for the next four years???” – Reader
Politely, civilly, quietly, almost meekly, I must answer.
Eight years of Bill Clinton was enough future shock for one lifetime.
Four years of Obama will completely destroy what little is left of the work ethic, and he will spend a few minutes each day teaching us that he is sunrise and sunset without ever actually saying anything as fitfully quotable as “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”