Category Archives: Barack Obama

Kind reader offers me a way to spend some of that ‘free-time’ that I’m just eaten up with

Now that most people have gone home for the day, I can find a few secs to skim through some of my e-mail from the last day or so, and I run across this:

To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Why is it that the press does not press on for info on the items below?

Missing Obama information…

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Your Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
14. Your Illinois State Senate records–‘not available’

Oh hey listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow.

To which I can only respond: Yeah, get back to me in about five minutes. I know I’ve got that stuff sitting around here somewhere….

Obama should back single-payer again, and do it NOW

26 Replies

Assuming we’re all agreed that Barack Obama is going to be the president, there’s one thing I wish he’d go ahead and do right now: Return to his onetime support for a single-payer health care system.

As you know, I came to two conclusions awhile back:

That only a single-payer plan would solve our country’s problems paying for health care. Anything short of that just further complicates the problem. We miss the mark by talking all the time about the "uninsured." It’s the majority of us who ARE covered, but increasingly can’t afford our health care bills anyway, who are the much greater problem. We need to eliminate the for-profit middlemen in the equation.
The only way we’ll get single-payer is for someone to RUN for president on that platform and win convincingly. If Obama (or, to stretch a point, McCain) announced AFTER getting elected that he wanted a single-payer system, Congress would tell him to go fly a kite. The private insurance industry — folks like my old friend Joel Wood — have WAY too much juice on the Hill for a president to make than happen unless he has a clear electoral mandate to do it.

As I wrote in December of last year:

And the operative word is “bold.” Why? Because unless we start the conversation there, all we might hope for is that a few more of the one out of seven Americans who don’t have insurance will be in the “system” with the rest of us — if that, after the inevitable watering-down by Congress. And that’s not “reform.” Actual reform would rescue all of us from a “system” that neither American workers nor American employers can afford to keep propping up.

A lot of people have high hopes for Obama changing this country for the better. There is no more dramatic way he could do so than to win after coming out for a REAL health care solution.

No, he’s not going to do that. He’s way too cautious, far too deliberate. He sticks to his game plan. He’s not going to rock that boat now. If I thought I could convince him — and thought he could win — I’d urge McCain to do it. As we know, he’s far more willing to throw the dice (can you say, "Sarah Palin"?). But he’s never shown any interest in single-payer. But as Hillary Clinton pointed out back before the S.C. primary, Obama used to be for it, before he was against it.

But I wish he would. I think he’d still win, and then he could do some real good on this, our most important domestic issue.

McCain’s Bob Dole problem

11 Replies

No, I’m not saying Bob Dole personally is causing a problem for John McCain. I’m saying his problem is that in this election, he’s playing the Bob Dole part — and Barack Obama is Bill Clinton (but don’t tell him that — the way he and Bill have been getting along, he’s likely to take it as an insult).

You remember Bob Dole — the other disabled war hero who couldn’t win the White House, the one who always referred to himself in the Third Person, by his full name ("Bob Dole doesn’t do that! Why would you say Bob Dole does that? Leave Bob Dole alone…") .

Dole ran a lousy campaign, lousy primarily in that it utterly failed to present convincingly why he should have been president. McCain is doing the same thing now.

The big difference between the two, for me, is that I started out liking McCain a whole lot more than I liked the guy that the NYT once called the Dark Prince of Gridlock. Bob Dole was a much more wholehearted partisan warrior than McCain. He was no maverick, not by a long shot. You don’t get to lead your party in the Senate by rebelling against it.

So with me, he started off in a hole. And in the end, I still think McCain should be president — while I no longer thought that of Bob Dole by the end of the 1996 campaign. I had thought it for awhile, though, comparing him and Bill Clinton. I had liked Clinton in 92, but he had disappointed me in a lot of ways by 96. The bottom line was that I just didn’t trust the guy anymore, based on a number of things. (I have no dramatic personal story about that, but I know someone who does: Hodding Carter III told me of going to see Bill Clinton with a delegation concerned about Bosnia. I forget what the delegation wanted — that the U.S. get involved, that the U.S. stay out, whatever — but whatever it wanted, Clinton promised bald-faced he would do. They left feeling confident. About a week later, Clinton did the exact opposite, and it came out that he had known that was what he was going to do when he met with the delegation. Carter felt personally betrayed by that. It seemed consistent with the impression I had formed by then.)

Early in the campaign, I wrote some columns — and editorials, too, I think — that pretty clearly expressed a preference for Dole over Clinton. But when the time approached to do our actual endorsement, I went to then-editor Tom McLean and told him I could not in good conscience write it, because I had become convinced that Dole couldn’t govern his way out of a wet paper bag. I knew by then that I couldn’t convince the board not to endorse Dole, but I declined the honor of writing it. (Of course, you didn’t hear all of this at the time because it was long before I became editor and adopted the policies of extreme transparency that you see today. The board was Old School in those days; you didn’t see the man behind the curtain.)

I never got to that point with McCain, but in the last weeks I thought about it. Those of you who insist that this endorsement was fully decided long ago don’t understand how much I thought about it. But in the end, for me, John McCain may not be good at communicating via a political campaign that he would be the better president, but I still believe he’d be the better president — based on Iraq, based on the Gang of 14 and judicial selection, on free trade, on immigration, etc., all that stuff I’ve already told you.

Now here’s a postscript to the story that will cause you to do a double-take: Despite what I’d said to Tom, I voted for Dole in 96. Why? For the exact same reason I voted for McGovern in 72. You probably don’t know many people who can say that, but I can. (Never doubt my deep devotion to UnParty unorthodoxy.) And I don’t regret either vote.

Essentially, both were protest votes. I thought McGovern would have been a disaster as president. But I wanted to register a protest against Nixon, mainly because of Watergate (even based on what little was known by then). If McGovern had had a chance to win, I’d have held my nose and voted for Nixon, because on the whole I thought the gummint would be in more capable hands that way. And I’d have regretted it forever. But McGovern’s hapless candidacy gave me the opportunity to make the gesture.

Same deal in 96. If I’d thought Dole had a prayer, I’d have held my nose and voted for Clinton — much as I distrusted him by that point, I thought him more competent. (Note that Nixon and Clinton had an advantage with me that Obama lacks — they had shown their competence in office, as president.) But Dole had no prayer, so I voted for him as a protest. And it felt exactly like voting for McGovern.

By the way, torn as I was, I made both of those decisions in the voting booth. So I can, indeed, identify with Cindi’s indecision.

Cindi’s ‘undecided’ column

30 Replies

Cindi was off on Friday when I wrote my Sunday column, but asked me to fax it to her. She promptly told me that my original draft had described her role in the endorsement discussion inaccurately. I had correctly put her statement that she might sorta kinda be leaning to Obama AFTER she asked me whether a tie would prevent us from endorsing, but I had failed to get in the cause-and-effect relationship, which was that she wouldn’t even have said that much if I had said her vote would deadlock us. So we negotiated new language. But apparently I still didn’t fully communicate the depth of her neutrality, since some folks in their comments counted her as a pro-Obama vote. She insists, in this column and in private conversation, that she is still torn and undecided.

I know from long experience with you partisans out there that you can’t possibly imagine that a thinking person could be undecided. And what’s particularly amazing in this case is that Cindi is seldom without a strongly held opinion. But be nice to her, folks. I understand her completely. I have decided whom to vote for in presidential elections more than once in the voting booth itself. So be patient with Cindi; she’s in an uncomfortable place. Also, I’ve probably already teased her about it more than a supervisor should.

Anyway, add this to the overall endorsement package, along with the endorsement itself, my column, Warren’s column, and all the stuff that’s been said here on the blog.

Undecided, and awaiting an epiphany
By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE
Associate Editor
I BOUGHT myself two weeks by copping out when our editorial board decided whom to endorse for president. For all the good it’s done so far.
One week to go, and I remain an undecided voter.
I’ve never been in this position before. Never stayed on the sidelines in an important endorsement decision before.
Oh, I’ve been undecided about what I would do in the voting booth. But that indecision wasn’t over which candidate to support; it was over whether I could hold my nose hard enough to cast my ballot for the candidate I agreed we should endorse, or whether to leave that race blank. What’s different this time is that I want to vote for both the candidates.
Neither is clearly superior in my mind. Both John McCain and Barack Obama bring an approach to politics that is sorely lacking in Washington and, increasingly, throughout our nation. They see it not as a game to win — and certainly not as an opportunity to demolish “the other side” — but rather as a way to debate issues and reach conclusions that are best for our country. Both have shown they’re willing to look beyond party labels and rigid ideologies; Sen. McCain has a much clearer track record on this score, but at the same time, he has strayed further during this campaign than has Sen. Obama. If for no other reason than their approach to politics, I believe that either man would greatly improve our nation.
I much prefer Sen. McCain’s approach to foreign policy; not a week has passed since 9/11 when I have not bemoaned how much better off our country, and our world, would be had he been elected in 2000. But over the past year, we have watched Sen. Obama grow more responsible on the topic; he has demonstrated that he will surround himself with smart advisers, and Colin Powell’s decision to endorse him certainly has reduced my worries. I believe that either candidate would greatly improve our standing in the world, which would improve our world.
I prefer Sen. Obama’s approach to domestic policy. He’s further to the left than I find comfortable, but I believe our nation has swung far too far right — dismantling regulatory systems, adopting policies that have produced the greatest wealth disparity in modern history between workers and executives; and say what you will about Sen. Obama’s health insurance plan, Sen. McCain’s would dismantle the very notion of “insurance.” (David Brooks’ fine column on the facing page does a much better job explaining where I’m coming from — on all but insurance — than I can.)
What worries me is that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress would swing the pendulum too far left — just as the Republican president and Congress swung it too far right. I do believe Sen. McCain would be far more willing to work with a Democratic Congress to make pragmatic changes than the current president ever has been, but I also believe that if the Democrats went too far, the voters would put Republicans back in charge of the House, the Senate or both in two years.
I’m not sure that a more activist government isn’t what our nation needs right now. Both candidates have come to realize that we can no longer take such a laissez-faire approach to the financial markets. But we also need a president who believes in regulation even when the bottom isn’t falling out. One who believes the Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to actually look out for the safety of consumer products, rather than seeking to further dismantle the agency even when defective Chinese products are flooding our markets. One who believes the Agriculture Department should actually try to protect consumers from mad cow disease, rather than protecting the cattle industry from those who would protect us. I think Sen. Obama sees this; Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has a track record of pushing for deregulation, although he is much more a pragmatist than a devoted member of the Church of the Free Market.
What I am not considering in making my decision is the venom being spewed by the so-called supporters of each candidate. Every new e-mail with the doctored photos and clumsily concocted “facts” about Sen. Obama’s alleged Muslim heritage pushes me a little toward voting for him — if only to disassociate myself from the racists who peddle such lies. But there are equal and opposing forces pushing me back toward Sen. McCain — most notably those self-satisfied souls who proclaim that the only reason anyone could possibly not vote for Sen. Obama is racism; what utter nonsense.
These aren’t supporters. They are opponents of the other candidate, the other party, of anyone who doesn’t share their opinions.
When Sarah Palin speaks glibly of Mr. Obama “palling around” with “domestic terrorists,” I am turned off; she’s counting on people assuming that he really is “palling around,” and doing it with Islamic terrorists. Sen. Obama and his campaign haven’t been nearly as misleading — you don’t have to be when you’re leading in the polls — although this “third term of George Bush” nonsense is wearing.
What would help me decide? An epiphany, I suppose.
But I’m not holding my breath. The last one of those I had was the sudden realization that there aren’t a lot of epiphanies to go around, that what we have to do is make a decision and act on it — act on it as though we had an epiphany.
Fortunately, there’s no wrong decision this time around.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.

McCain vs. Obama: The cognitive difference

58 Replies

Reading some of the e-mail responses today from those who did not like our McCain endorsement, and thinking about what those complaints had in common with some of the feedback I’d already gotten here on the blog, I suddenly arrived at the simplest theory for explaining the difference between McCain supporters and Obama supporters.

This is going to seem not only simple, but painfully obvious — but it didn’t occur to me until today to put it this way. Here goes:

McCain supporters are all about his record, NOT about what’s happened in the campaign.
Obama supporters are all about what we’ve seen in the campaign.

No, this doesn’t explain everything. For instance, for some of those on the right who never liked McCain before, but will vote for him because of Sarah Palin (rather than in spite of her), it’s about the campaign. And for those who will back Obama because of Joe Biden are looking at Joe’s record.

But for an awful lot of us who are swing voters, who are neither of the left nor the right, my little epiphany explains a lot.

It certainly explains why there’s such a divide between me and those who just can’t understand (at least that’s what they keep saying) why I don’t even get into the such subjects as Sarah Palin in the endorsement. Basically, I’ve watched McCain over the years, and have liked what he actually does in office. If I didn’t have that to go by, I’d probably be for Obama, too. There’s no question that Obama is the better campaigner, far better at presenting himself in a positive light than McCain is. McCain the campaigner has been a pretty sad spectacle, compared to his proven record in office.

And that’s a good thing for Obama, because the campaign is about all the voters have to go by with him. Basically, there’s that, and the fact that he picked somebody with the experience he lacks to be his running mate, and that’s it. And because it IS about that for Obama supporters, they just don’t get how it’s not all about that for ME. But for me, what’s happened in the last few months (or even, for those focused on the general, the last few weeks) can only have a limited impact upon an impression based on a decades-long record.

Would it make y’all happier if I said that I’d be with you if it were all about (for me) Sarah Palin, or McCain’s message in his recent ads? But for me, it’s actually about having been right about Iraq (which is a genuine point of disagreement between me and some of you), and the demonstrated ability to work across the aisle on judicial appointments, the willingness to take huge political risks to act intelligently on immigration, years of fighting against the undue effect of money in political campaigns, and so forth. Not to mention having proved he puts "country first" in ways that few living men have, in ways so profound that it vastly outweighs the carelessness about his country’s future that so many see in his choice of Sarah Palin.

So it is that I can laugh at Tina Fey’s send-ups of Gov. Palin, but endorse McCain — something that seems to perplex some of y’all no end.

More feedback on McCain endorsement

24 Replies

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:

Hi,

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"
argument.

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.

_________________________________________

Brad

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.

__________________________________________________

Morning,
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.

More about the McCain endorsement

116 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MANY WHO KNOW my views — and between my columns and my blog, readers probably know my mind better than they do any other editor’s of their acquaintance — assumed all along that we would endorse John McCain.
I’ve made it clear many times that I thought we should have done so in 2000 (in the GOP primary). And my belief in his suitability remains undiminished, despite much that has happened in this general election campaign. (I found both Sen. McCain and Barack Obama more appealing running against the angry elements in their respective parties, rather than as their standard-bearers.) My judgments tend to be cumulative, based on years of observation more than the spin cycle topic of the day.
But to assume this endorsement was inevitable is to presume to know more than I did.
First, I am not the editorial board; I merely preside over it. Associate Editors Warren Bolton (whose strong, eloquent dissenting opinion is on the facing page) and Cindi Ross Scoppe both have their say, as does my boss, President and Publisher Henry Haitz. To absurdly condense a two-hour discussion: Henry and I favored McCain, Warren preferred Obama, and Cindi wasn’t sure — and she is seldom unsure about anything. She asked me whether a tie meant no endorsement, or whether Henry’s and my votes outweighed hers and Warren’s. I acknowledged that if it came to that, yes — our votes counted more. (In 2000, the board was evenly split between Bush and McCain, with our then-publisher on one side and me on the other, so I lost.) Only when she thought the matter was thus settled did she say she thought she was leaning ever so slightly toward Sen. Obama. She remains torn. (She plans her own column on the subject for next week.)
So this was not a foregone conclusion. But lest you think we’re terribly divided, remember that we unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed both McCain and Obama in their respective primaries in January. We just split over which we like more.
Even if I had had to decide all alone, I would have struggled with not endorsing Barack Obama. I meant every word that we said in praising him in January. Also, ever since I became editorial page editor in 1997, I have looked forward to the day that we could break the paper’s long pattern of endorsing Republicans for president, if only because in some people’s minds, that makes us a “Republican newspaper,” and I find it deeply distasteful to be identified with either party. Yes, I can point to the fact that in my tenure, we have endorsed slightly more Democrats than Republicans — and we spend far more time on those state and local races than we do on the presidential. But people attach huge importance to the presidential endorsement — many don’t pay attention to anything else. So I’ve hoped for years that the national Democratic Party would give us a nominee we could support.
Barack Obama is that Democrat. We would happily endorse him over Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee — and certainly over the current occupant of the White House.
But he was up against the one Republican who happens to be the national political figure I respect and admire most, and have wanted to see in the White House for at least a decade. So his timing couldn’t have been worse.
I don’t regret endorsing John McCain one bit; I’m proud to see this day. But I hate missing the chance to endorse Obama.
Beyond that, let me briefly address several questions that came up on my blog after we posted our endorsement online Friday (I answer them more fully on the blog itself):
Why does the endorsement not talk about the current economic crisis? Because it doesn’t figure in our preference for Sen. McCain. Both senators backed the $700 billion rescue plan, which I think they were right to do. Beyond that, I remain unconvinced that either of them has a better idea what to do next than the other. I wish I did, but I don’t. So I consider their positions on this critical issue something of a wash, and therefore out of place in the endorsement.
Why so many words about the Colombian Free Trade Agreement? Because it has broader implications that do illustrate a clear, dramatic difference between the candidates, and one that points unequivocally to McCain. Besides, it is an issue you may not have heard as much about (meaning it took a certain number of words merely to explain), and if an endorsement accomplishes nothing else, we hope it helps you think of things you might not have thought about otherwise.
Why didn’t you mention Sarah Palin? Because the endorsement was about why we did choose McCain, not about why we “shouldn’t have.” I don’t think Sarah Palin is ready to be president. She has about as much experience in government as Barack Obama, but let’s face it — he’s smarter. If I were choosing the president solely on the basis of his choice of a running mate, I’d pick Obama, because I like Joe Biden. But I’ve never picked a presidential preference on that basis before, and see insufficient reason to start now. Bottom line: For me, the reasons to favor Sen. McCain outweigh my misgivings about Gov. Palin.
We could go on and on, and we will. Please come to my blog and continue the conversation.

Go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Warren Bolton: ‘Why I prefer Obama’

41 Replies

Since it’s an essential part of the overall presidential endorsement package, I thought it would be a good idea to post Warren’s dissenting column on the blog as well. I don’t know about you, but I thought he did a good job with it. — Brad

By WARREN BOLTON
Associate Editor
WHO WILL lead us through these extraordinary times — John McCain or Barack Obama?
Which of these men — both uniquely qualified to be president — can not only return confidence and stability to a country shaken at its foundation, but get Americans to see and embrace a future beyond today’s challenges?
The top question Americans confront as foreclosures rise, credit dries up, jobs are cut and financial markets free-fall is: Are you better off today than you were yesterday? We’re engaged in two wars — one of which was an ill-timed war of opportunity that has distracted us from the war on terror. Other threats and hot spots dot the globe.
While America remains a beacon of hope, our light doesn’t shine as brightly. The next president must shoulder the dual burdens of strengthening the home front while leading globally.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are both capable, but only one possesses extraordinary qualities to shepherd our country through these extraordinary times.
That’s Sen. Barack Obama.
Under Mr. McCain, I see an America that’s safe, stuck and satisfied. The middle class would remain stuck, while only the wealthy would be satisfied.
But Mr. Obama’s a game-changer. He’s a gifted leader who possesses the right judgment, leadership skills, temperament and steadiness. He has a consistent, coherent vision for America, whereas Mr. McCain has been all over the place.
Mr. Obama’s health care plan is far superior and will actually expand the number of people covered. And if we’re going to have tax cuts, it should be for the many working people who have seen their wages stagnate, their plans for their children’s future endangered and their lifestyles dwindle.
Mr. McCain has lots of experience in national politics and a record of legislative and diplomatic leadership. He’s worked across party lines and is rightly hailed for his service to this great country. But there are questions about his temperament as well as his ability to craft a cohesive vision.
The John McCain of 2008 isn’t the stalwart leader many admired in 2000. He walked away from some of his independence in exchange for a shot at the White House. He embraced positions straight from the Bush playbook, including wanting to continue tax cuts he once denounced.
For a man who said he would rather lose an election than a war, he has gone to great lengths to win, even to point of saying that if he is elected and something happens to him, Gov. Sarah Palin, who is clearly not ready, is the one he would choose.
That irresponsible choice says a lot about Mr. McCain’s judgment. A number of things he’s done or has allowed to be done on behalf of his campaign suggest that he’ll do anything to win.
Mr. McCain’s unrelenting support of the Iraq war and inability to clearly articulate the “victory” he speaks of is troubling. Yes, he was right about the surge. It brought violence under control. But now what? Where’s the victory? Where’s the political progress in Iraq? It’s time we get out and allow Iraqis to run and defend their country.
Sen. Obama would be much wiser about getting out of Iraq. He would focus us back on the dangerous situation in Afghanistan, the war on terror and Osama bin Laden.
One of Sen. Obama’s greatest strengths is the fact that he thinks. Wow, a thinking president. I know. Wild isn’t it? Many who have sat with him — including me — notice quickly he doesn’t give stock answers, and genuinely considers questions and issues.
As intelligent as he is, Sen. Obama won’t hesitate to surround himself with other smart people who will challenge him. He would build an experienced, credible and bipartisan Cabinet. He’s already given us a glimpse of the kind of choices he would make by selecting Sen. Joe Biden.
Some have mocked Mr. Obama’s rhetorical prowess as being “just speeches.” Powerful oratory has built nations and reshaped civilizations. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “speeches” transformed the soul of America. John F. Kennedy’s “speeches” united America to do the extraordinary — to go to the moon.
Sen. Obama has energized millions of all races, ages and socio-economic backgrounds. People are engaged, waiting for the messenger to lay out the vision. He’s shown he can and is willing to talk about tough issues with Americans when he gave his speech on race.
Mr. Obama is one of those rare leaders who come along too seldom. His bi-racial background and multicultural experiences give him a unique lens through which to see an America that is becoming more like him. He represents where America is headed, and might be the one who can convince a broad range of people to help mend our fractured country, already the greatest on earth, and make its light shine brighter both at home and abroad.
His well-organized, record-setting campaign has been well-managed, features an awesome army of staff and volunteers in nearly every state and hasn’t suffered the infighting that characterizes — and kills — so many campaigns. Mr. McCain’s campaign has been woefully disorganized and has done a pitiful job of capturing who Mr. McCain really is and why he should be elected.
Has there been anyone more unflappable, more consistent, more thoughtful, more engaging — when he speaks, the nation listens — than Sen. Obama? Has anyone been more presidential?
No. That’s why we need an Obama presidency.

Reach Mr. Bolton at (803) 771-8631 or wbolton@thestate.com.

Commenting on the endorsement

57 Replies

Before I turn my attention completely to writing for Sunday’s paper, I’ll respond briefly to some of the comments offered this morning with regard to our McCain endorsement. I’ll start with something Phillip said (actually, his was the last comment when I started this response; several others have come in since then, but I’ll have to read them later):

P.S. Since Editor and Publisher’s latest count has not included the State, the State now becomes the 50th newspaper in the US to endorse McCain. 127 have endorsed Obama. In 2004 the count was virtually even between Kerry and Bush, and now nearly 30 papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed Obama, whereas only a handful that endorsed Kerry 2004 have endorsed McCain. Again, more evidence that Obama’s appeal is broader across party and ideological lines and holds the greater promise of bipartisan leadership and unity.

Posted by: Phillip | Oct 24, 2008 9:10:17 AM

I should have added "the State’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge that reality notwithstanding" to that last sentence.

Posted by: Phillip | Oct 24, 2008 9:12:46 AM

Phillip, I don’t understand why you would say that last part. Scroll to the lower part of this original post. The "reality" you say we "stubbornly refuse to acknowledge" is something I have cited over and over. It’s THE biggest reason why we strongly preferred Obama over Hillary Clinton. It’s what we mean in the endorsement you read today when we say, "Barack Obama is an inspiring and even transformational figure." What did you think that referred to?

And yes, I’m perfectly aware that most newspapers are endorsing Obama. In the rough draft of the editorial (before I cut it down to fit the space awaiting it on the Sunday page), I wrote "Like the many newspapers that have endorsed him, we, too, find him to be an inspiring…" But that was one of the more superfluous lines among the many that had to go in cutting out four inches from the piece. What other newspapers are doing is neither here nor there.

I do find it amusing that someone commenting on the previous post thinks it would have been more "courageous" to endorse Obama. Hardly. Going along with the crowd, particularly when they’re lining up behind someone you like very much, and who you fully believe is going to WIN, is the path of least resistance. Just think of all the very nice people, people whom I would love to please, who would be singing our praises now, while a few trolls under the bridge mutter inaudibly about how they knew we were "socialists" all along, and what do you expect from the "liberal media." We’d be praised for being "bold," for making an "historic break with the past," etc. Never mind that there would be nothing bold about it; it would just feel that way to a lot of people.

Add to this the fact that I gave up something very tangible and palpable, to me. Ever since I became editorial page editor in 1997, I have longed for the day that I could break the pattern of endorsing Republicans for president, if only because in some people’s minds, that makes us a "Republican newspaper," and I find it deeply distasteful to be called such names. Yes, I have been able to comfort myself by pointing to the substantial, documented falsehood of the label — most notably the fact that if you consider all of our endorsements (and we spend vastly more of our time on state and local races than we do on the presidential), more than half of them are for Democrats. But people attach an inordinate amount of importance to the presidential endorsement — so many people don’t pay attention to anything else — and there we have been trapped. We like SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats, not the national kind. People like John Kerry and even Al Gore, in running for national office, define themselves in ways that put them far to the left of the consensus of our editorial board, which is generally reflective of the political center in our state. (Ironically, in Gore’s case, he had earlier been a far more centrist politician, to the point that I enthusiastically supported an endorsement of him when he ran for the Senate in Tennessee.)

But Obama presented the chance I had awaited for so long. Here was a Democrat we could happily endorse, something we unquestionable would have done had he been up against Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee — and certainly if he’d been facing the current president (something he likes to pretend he’s doing as we speak).

But he was up against the one Republican who happens to be the national political figure I respect and admire most, and have wanted to see in the White House for at least a decade. So his timing couldn’t have been worse.

Now, as to those of you who find it unthinkable that we didn’t write about the current economic situation, or that we DID spend a long paragraph on the Colombian Free Trade agreement, let me see if I can help you understand: First, I don’t give either candidate a leg up on the economic crisis. I haven’t been impressed that either of them has a better idea than I do of what to do going forward. Both of them backed the $700 billion rescue plan, and while I think they were right to do so, I just haven’t seen much to jump up and down about either way on this. Frankly, I worry that neither of them is up to the challenge, but that worry is poorly defined in my own mind. While economic policy was discussed in our board debate of this endorsement, it did not occur in a way that caused us to coalesce around a position. In other words, I could have spent precious words on the economy, but it would have been a digression from the points that actually contributed to our endorsement, and everyone would have found it unhelpful. Yes, I understand that people who favor Obama are somewhat more eager to discuss the economy than those of us who end up where I do on the question. Democrats love talking about the economy. And they will. But we endorsed McCain neither because of nor in spite of the candidates’ positions on the economy.

On the contrary, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement — which required a certain number of words even to explain to the reader, since it’s gained so little attention — had the virtue of being a sort of microcosmic way of explaining the sort of differences between the candidates that DID contribute to our endorsement. We were able to tell readers something they didn’t know, to examine the contrast between the candidates in terms of a subject that hasn’t been done to death. And for me, the moment when that came up in the third debate was a critical moment, a sort of epiphany, one in which my preference for McCain over Obama was clarified. As an explanation of an important difference between the candidate, one that bears upon their governing philosophies with regard to the global economy and their relative devotion to party orthodoxies, the portion of the editorial dealing with Colombian trade was far more explanatory than spending a comparable number of words rehashing the economic crisis, only to say in the end that on that issue, for us, it’s a wash.

If you haven’t figured this out about me and my leadership of the editorial board, let me state it overtly now: I see little point in telling you things you already know. To the extent that I am able, I wish to ADD to the conversation, not parrot what others are saying. Hence this countercultural blog, in which I fight against the tide of the Blogosphere as a place where polar opposites shout at each other. Similarly, my exploration of Colombian trade as opposed to platitudes on the economy sought to explore uncovered ground, to give people something additional to think about.

As for whether I should have cut something out of the editorial to make room for a digression about Sarah Palin (the omission of which Phillip found to be "astonishing" and "shoddy journalism") — well, I can perfectly understand why someone who thinks we should have endorsed Obama would want to bring that up. But since Sarah Palin did NOT contribute to the decision to endorse McCain, it’s hard for me to see why I would bring that up, explore the problems that she brings to the ticket, and then explain why we would endorse McCain anyway for those of you who don’t get it (and even after doing that at the expense of not giving you the reasons why we did endorse McCain, those of you who disagree would remain unsatisfied). Besides, it would have been a departure to say we’re endorsing someone because of, or in spite of, the vice presidential pick. I can’t think of when we’ve done that before (if you can, please point it out). Sarah Palin looms very large in the minds of two sets of people — the conservative Republican base that loves her, and the people who despise her and see her as sufficient reason NOT to vote for McCain. We are in neither category.

And by "we," I mean the official position that we ended up with as a board. As I write this, Warren Bolton is working (at my behest) on his column for Sunday expressing his dissenting opinion. He may explore the economy or go into the failings of Sarah Palin at length. I don’t know. But a column saying we SHOULD have endorsed Obama seems to me like a better part of the overall package in which to explore those avenues. The endorsement of McCain explores one part of the overall subject. Warren’s column explores another. My column — which I need to go write — will explore yet another.

In the end, the overall goal is to provoke thought — hopefully, thoughts you might not otherwise have had — among our readers regarding the presidential election. That’s what we strive for.

Do you believe the AP poll saying it’s a dead heat?

20 Replies

The AP has reported a poll putting McCain in a dead heat with Obama:

WASHINGTON — The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain’s "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day….

Do you believe that? I don’t think I do. Other polls, such as this one, show tightening, but nothing THAT close.

Just yesterday, The Wall Street Journal found Obama opening up a double-digit lead, which seemed more consistent with what my gut was telling me.

But who knows? What do y’all think?

That ‘unrepentant’ Colin Powell

41 Replies

You may recall that recently, I made the argument that William Ayers should not have been paid to come to a public university in South Carolina, that in fact he should be considered persona non grata in our fair state.

The crux of my argument was the fact that Ayers, by his own account, is an unrepentant terrorist.

So you can imagine my great sense of irony when someone on the anti-war left objected to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama on the grounds that the general himself is "unrepentant:"

As CNN reported yesterday, Powell remains totally unrepentant both about his own critical role pushing us to war. For instance, he claims to have tried to stop the war, five years after giving the single most important (and discredited) speech in building the public case for war. He now claims he wants to see the war end, but it’s difficult to trust the integrity of a man who denies even the most basic facts of his public involvement in creating the crisis in the first place. That Obama now seems to reflexively trust Powell suggests not foreign policy prudence from the Democratic nominee, but knee-jerk ignorance — and worse, a potential to abdicate the very antiwar themes he’s run on for so long.

So what do you make of that?

While the two groups by no means correspond precisely, I imagine that there is a significant overlap between people who are untroubled by Ayers being unrepentant for plotting to bomb the Pentagon and those who ARE troubled that Gen. Powell is "unrepentant" about his role in the run-up to Iraq. In fact, some of our friends here on the blog may reside in that overlap.

But perhaps I’m wrong about that. I hope I am.

Speaking of which, I thought the general did a good job in his endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was better reasoned than the Tribune‘s.

Philadelphia’s weird endorsement(s)

70 Replies

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.

Disregard previous: ACORN is in S.C.

19 Replies

You know how I passed on the word that ACORN had essentially been chased out of S.C. by SLED? Well, now the same source — the Charleston paper — says the group IS doing something in our state, just not the kind of voter registration shtick that it’s become recently infamous for. Here’s the story:

By Robert Behre (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also known as ACORN, is still operating in South Carolina but is focusing more on tax assistance and foreclosure assistance than on voter registration.

Head organizer Jean Busby said what voter registration work the group is doing is under the umbrella of the S.C. Progressive Network….

The Post and Courier reported earlier this month that the group was no longer in the state after repeated calls to its Columbia office were met with a busy signal, after an operator said there was no Columbia listing for the group and after a worker in its national office in Washington said the group had no presence here….

Oh, and FYI — the S.C. Progressive Network? That’s Brett Bursey’s outfit. I’m sure all of those of you who were concerned about ACORN feel much better now, knowing that. (Do I have a dry wit, or what?)

McCain certainly winning the hubris contest

21 Replies

Going through my e-mail earlier today, I ran across this one from the Obama campaign:

Election Night Media Website Now Open

CHICAGO – The Obama-Biden campaign today opened a website to collect media credential and coverage resource requests for our Election Night event in Chicago. Credential and media resource requests will be accepted … through midnight on Saturday, October 25, 2008. Late requests will not be accepted. Space is limited.

The website provides two options for news outlets to request credentials to cover the Election Night event in Chicago…

And you know what struck me about that? It’s modesty. The standard such release touts a "Victory Celebration," and this one didn’t. Yeah, it’s to the media and not to a list of supporters (or, some would say, overt supporters), but I still found myself thinking: How cool can Obama get? He’s not going to take anything for granted, and certainly not get excited prematurely — if ever.

I had almost forgotten that release when I got this one from McCain, headlined "Two weeks to Victory." Never mind that that’s almost maniacally optimistic. Consider that Obama is widely seen as the heir to JFK, whose administration, at least in retrospect, made "hubris" a household word. But ironically enough, The One is the one playing it modest.

The Trib’s endorsement of Obama

56 Replies

Phillip reminds me of something that I heard about yesterday, and meant to go read and share with y’all. In the middle of one of the worst Fridays I’ve had in a while — my efforts to write the long piece about McCain (the companion to the Obama one last week) were constantly interrupted by minor problems that nevertheless had to be dealt with. One thing about the Obama piece last week that frustrates me is that I thought it was good, and I think I could produce a lot more work like that if I had the time, if I weren’t constantly having to deal with the minutiae of publishing that I no longer have the staff to do. But this is the way things are.

Anyway, at a particularly bad moment in the day, Robert stuck his head in to say "The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Obama," and I said "unh-huh," and he said "it’s the first time they’ve endorsed a Democrat," and I said, "yeah OK thanks."

Anyway, by the time I got away a little after 9 p.m. I had forgotten it, and so I thank Phillip for reminding me.

Here’s the link to the Tribune‘s endorsement. It’s pretty good. It’s got strong points and weak ones. It’s strongest point is that it gives its word, as an editorial board I trust, that we don’t have to worry about Obama, untested as he may be:

Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

That might not be persuasive to a lot of people, but it carries weight with me.

Its weakest point is that it keeps going on about the "history in the making," etc., what with "the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S." That latter bit of quote is one I could deconstruct all day, but I gave you some idea what I thought about it last week. I don’t think of him a "black man," and it’s a bit tough for a graduate of public Radford High to see a graduate of Punahou as "underprivileged" (we won’t even get into Columbia and Harvard).

Beyond that, I’ve always held a dim view of identity politics. I think choosing this ticket because a "black man" is on it, or the other ticket because a woman is on it, would be irresponsible.

Speaking of that, the Trib criticizes the Palin choice in the strongest terms, and I gather that played a large role in the paper’s decision. I think it’s going to be the deciding factor for a lot of people. Personally, I think it’s the biggest mistake McCain has made since he failed to "jink" when he knew a SAM was locked onto him over Hanoi.

On the whole, though, while I think it’s a good endorsement, I was disappointed that it didn’t help me more with the decision we’ll have to make next week. I’d feel good about endorsing either McCain or Obama. What I’d have a problem with is NOT endorsing the other one. This endorsement was neither so strong that it made me feel OK about not endorsing McCain, nor so weak that it made me feel OK about not endorsing Obama. Ah, well.

Watch for the McCain opus Sunday

19 Replies

And this time, I’ll try to remember to make sure it posts on the blog before Monday.

This piece will have several things in common with the "Barack Like Me" column:

It will be just as long (sorry, but it took a good bit of trimming even to get them down to that length).
It will be based on a number of things that cause me to feel a personal connection to the candidate and as a result enable me to say some things I hope you will find at least somewhat original.
It will be written right after reading an autobiography about the candidate, although much of it will be based in experiences I had long ago.

Beyond that, I’m afraid I don’t think this column is quite as good as the first one. With McCain, the "like me" thing breaks down at a certain point, which is ironic because of the greater superficial similarities in our backgrounds. But while we’re both Navy brats, that’s all I was — a dependent. I never served, much less serving heroically, and that creates a crimp in the whole identification thing.

But I think it still rises above my usual columns in what it offers. I was just very satisfied with the way I was able to tie a lot of disparate observations within a single defensible theme in the Obama piece; and that didn’t work quite as well with this one. Maybe it’s just that I’m really tired (after reading late into the night the last two weeks) and struggled with the writing this time. Or maybe it’s just as I will say in the column: the thesis broke down.

By the way, I’ve gotten a lot of kind comments about the "Barack" piece — and some not so kind. But they all had something in common — all (or most, now that I think back) seemed to assume I was choosing sides in the election, and meant to laud Obama accordingly. That misses the point. So I sent variations on this message to several people who wrote to me about it in the past week:

Thank you so much; you’re very kind.

On Sunday, please watch for my companion piece about McCain.

A caveat: Neither of these columns should be seen as an endorsement, or even an attempt to assess the suitability of either man for the presidency. If you go back and read more closely, you’ll see they don’t even get into that.

What I was trying to do is just raise some thoughts that you might not have seen elsewhere about the formative experiences of both men.

I just say all that because some seemed to take my Obama piece as pro-Obama (some were happy about that; some angry), but that’s not what it was meant to be. The potential exists for some readers to assume the same about the upcoming McCain piece.

We WILL be endorsing, but haven’t yet made the decision whether it will be McCain or Obama. We’ll be deciding that next week.

What you need to remember as you read is that I like BOTH of these guys a lot; our endorsements of them in January were quite enthusiastic. The general election endorsement will be made all the tougher because of that. I know some of you think you know how we’re going to endorse, and you have a 50-50 chance of being right. But you’re wrong if you think the decision is already made. And as the days have gone by, the decision has loomed tougher and tougher. I’m dreading the discussion next week, and still trying to decide how to lead it. I will really be missing Mike Fitts, because as I described in this column and this one, he did a masterful job of helping walk us through these decisions.

Why I’m not worked up about ACORN

81 Replies

You may have gathered from this post that poking around into the doings of ACORN isn’t exactly a high priority of mine. Anyone who looked at what I have to do over the next few weeks would certainly understand that, regardless of his point of view. But it extends beyond that.

The ACORN stuff is just the kind of spin-cycle junk that does not interest me. Does that mean I don’t think voter fraud is a serious matter. No, of course not. It’s just that I don’t see it as that big a factor. Nor do I agree with this writer, who holds the precise opposite point of view of those who are worked up over ACORN:

By George Curry
The Philadelphia Inquirer
There have been some blatant and indefensible voter-registration violations committed by people acting on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). But the greater threat to preserving the integrity of the ballot box on Nov. 4 is voter suppression.

You see, liberal Democrats and their ideological fellow-travelers get extremely indignant over the idea that somewhere there’s somebody who’s legally (or at least, in their view, morally) entitled to vote and yet will not be allowed to. Conservative Republicans and their fellow-travelers get just as indignant over the idea that somewhere there’s somebody voting who either legally or morally should not be.

And you know what I think? I think humans, and the systems they devise, are imperfect. I think that in any national election, there are going to be a certain number of people (or imaginary people) voting who shouldn’t, and a certain number who are entitled who won’t be allowed to. But I think that with the two groups of people who are worked up about those two problems being all over it, and with a system that tries in good faith to avoid either problem, those two categories will be kept to a minimum, ohne mich. And overall, the competing effects will be something close to a wash.

You want something to worry about? Consider this: Neither problem will involve nearly as many people as the number who are entitled to vote who won’t bother, or the number who WILL vote who are clueless about who or what they’re voting for. It’s an imperfect world, and therefore a fundamentally flawed system for choosing our leaders. It’s just the best we’ve been able to devise so far.

Back to ACORN — yes, I understand that some people think the ACORN scandals provide a window into the character of one of the men running for president. I just don’t find that narrative all that persuasive. I find the Ayers and Wright connections much more relevant, and I don’t even consider those to be central — just relevant, something to take into consideration.

Anyway, that’s my view on the matter. What’s yours?

Report: SLED chased ACORN from SC

41 Replies

Among my 588 unread e-mails I went through today were two or three demanding that I go find out, and report back to the writers, whether ACORN had been doing nefarious things here in South Carolina. I made a mental note to — right after reading the 588 messages, going back and reading the 100 or so that came in while I was reading those, selecting op-ed copy for tomorrow, moving the copy for Friday’s page, finishing reading McCain’s autobiography, reading proofs, writing my Sunday column that I plan to be a companion piece to my tome of last Sunday, and emptying the messages on my phone that have overloaded my e-mail — run right out and interrogate each of the 4 million people in South Carolina to find out whether ACORN was active here.

But then I thought: Why not ask folks on the blog if THEY’VE heard about any ACORN doings in S.C.? If they had, I could pass the tip on to our newsroom, which might, just might have what I will never have — time to look into it.

But before I got caught up enough to do even that, I saw that ever-dependable Cindi had noticed that another paper had already checked, and here’s what they found:

Controversial activist group has made no waves in S.C.
ACORN pulled out 2 years ago after SLED started probe

By Robert Behre (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A national activist organization making headlines for its controversial voter registration drives once had a presence in South Carolina but pulled up stakes after the State Law Enforcement Division opened an investigation into its registration efforts in the Columbia area two years ago.
That investigation is ongoing, a SLED official said, declining further comment.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known commonly as ACORN, operated from an office on Hampton Street in downtown Columbia, but that office has closed….

Anybody hear anything to the contrary? If not, I’m going back to reading that book. I got my proofs turned in a few minutes ago. I’ll probably do what I’ve done all week (and last week, on the Obama book) — stay at my desk past dark, forcing myself to read X number of pages, then going home for dinner, then reading until midnight, or until I can’t keep my eyes open any more. I seldom go to this much trouble for one column, but I thought it paid off in a fairly decent, if offbeat, column Sunday. So I’m doing it again.

Joe the Maverick: The third and final (thank goodness) debate

88 Replies

Well, it’s almost over, which means that, if God is merciful, I will never have to hear "Joe the Plumber" mentioned again in my lifetime.

"Joe" has now replaced "maverick" as the word I’ve heard way too many times. I suggest that Sen. Obama’s running mate change his first name. For the first time, I feel some small measure of gratitude that Sen. McCain did not choose my man ___ Lieberman for HIS ticket.

Yes, I exaggerate, but only a little.

So what did YOU think of the debate? I thought the same as I did about the first two — not likely to change many minds. And I find myself weary of them, and want no more. I’ll scream if I hear once more that Obama would fine you if you don’t have the right health plan, and McCain would tax your bennies. Face it, gents, neither of you would solve our health care problems. Only Dennis Kucinich had the right idea there.

McCain’s best moment? When he explained to Mr. Obama something that he has a lot of trouble getting into his head: that John McCain is not George W. Bush.

Obama’s best moment? When he listed the people he relies on for advice, as opposed to the abominable Bill Ayers.

But again: What did y’all think?

Comparing McCain now with the campaign against him in 2000

14 Replies

Speaking of stuff that was on today’s op-ed page, did you read the other piece, the one by the two profs — no, wait, just one of them was a prof (at Furman); the other might more accurately be termed a "writer" — about how that awful John McCain ought to "know better" than to criticize Barack Obama over his associations because of the way he, McCain, was treated in the 2000 GOP primary here? An excerpt:

Here we go again. Politicians falling in the polls are resorting to
character slurs and political smears. To the people of South Carolina
it’s deja vu — all over again.

Last
week John McCain’s campaign launched a web advertisement about Barack
Obama’s ties to a “domestic terrorist.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama
sees America “as being so imperfect … that he’s palling around with
terrorists who would target their own country” and repeatedly commented
on Obama’s “association” with “terrorists.”

It is a chilling indictment. But false.

Such
sad irony. In the 2000 primaries, after John McCain defeated a heavily
favored George Bush by 19 percentage points in New Hampshire, the Texas
governor’s campaign was in trouble. If Bush lost the S.C. primary,
where his opponent was already popular, he had little chance of
stopping McCain. Something had to be done. Anything.

What did you think of the piece? Personally, I thought the premise was silly and way off-base. So why did I run it? Well, we run all sorts of views on the op-ed page, and I think a lot of them are silly and off-base. That’s all part of the public conversation. Specifically, I chose to leave this one on the page for two reasons:

There are a lot of people criticizing McCain these days along precisely these lines, and this was practically a textbook case of it. I especially like the tut-tutting tone attesting to how very disappointed the authors were in McCain ("Such sad irony.") — that is a trait
common to these sorts of assertions. So this was a good example of
that, and written from an SC angle. I thought it such a good example that I even overlooked the painfully trite bit about "deja vu all over again." (If only poor Yogi had a nickel for every time, huh?)
It was good to run it as a counterpoint to the Charles Krauthammer piece we ran on Friday, which stuck up for McCain over the Ayers stuff, etc., and criticized him only for having been too fussy to bring this stuff up long before.

Why did I think it silly and off-base? Oh come ON, people! Raising the subject of Bill Ayers — even in clumsy, demagogic language such as "palling around with terrorists" — is in NO WAY like making up a lie about John McCain’s adopted daughter that is specifically and particularly and reprehensibly designed to appeal to the worst racist instincts in the S.C. electorate. Say whatever else you want to say about it, but that’s an extreme stretch. It is ONLY logical if you mean that saying something that reflects poorly upon an opponent’s character is the same as any other instance of doing so. Which is silly.

The authors’ perception of moral equivalence seems to lie in the fact that they believe this, too is "false." But I missed the part where they, or anyone else, has demonstrated that. To the contrary, Obama has had dealings with Bill Ayers, and while the exact nature or extent of said relationship remains fuzzy, what little we know indicates that it was more friendly than, say, inimical. So what you’re left with is quibbling over the quantitative meaning of "palling around," and the generally incendiary, hamhanded style of the assertion by that silver-tongued wordsmith Sarah Palin, or the coarseness of crowds who eat that stuff up.

Or do you think that Bill Ayers is NOT an unrepentant terrorist? If so, I need to see the evidence. Because what I’ve seen argues to the contrary.

Tell you what. I’m going to stop being shy and tell you what I really think — I disagree both with Messrs. Manuto and O’Rourke AND with Krauthammer. I just told you why I disagree with the first two gentlemen. The part I disagree with Krauthammer over is the idea that McCain should have been hammering on this stuff all along. Personally, I wish he weren’t bringing it up NOW. It’s not going to accomplish anything positive — it just speaks to the great divide in our politics left over from Vietnam. That was a battle we didn’t think we were going to fight in this campaign.

And here’s where there is a kernel of a point in the O’Rourke-Manuto piece; they just spoiled it by grotesquely exaggerating it. And it’s this: this is not consistent with the style that has make McCain so popular with those of us who love to watch both sides in the culture wars get mad at him. There’s nothing WRONG with mentioning Ayers; it’s not a foul. But it’s not the style of play we go to McCain for.

There are better ways to say what the McCain campaign has been getting at with the Ayers stuff. For instance, it was stated fairly well in a piece in The Wall Street Journal last week (although the overall thrust of the piece, headlined "News Flash: The Media Back Obama" is in itself another tired cliche):

…Mr. Obama… is the leading exponent of the idea that our lost nation requires rehabilitation in the eyes of the world — and it is the most telling difference between him and Mr. McCain. When asked, in one of the earliest debates of the primary, his first priority should he become president, his answer was clear. He would go abroad immediately to make amends, and assure allies and others in the world America had alienated, that we were prepared to do all necessary to gain back their respect.

It is impossible to imagine those words coming from Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama has uttered them repeatedly one way or another and no wonder. They are in his bones, this impossible-to-conceal belief that we’ve lost face among the nations of the world — presumably our moral superiors. He is here to reform the fallen America and make us worthy again of respect. It is not in him, this thoughtful, civilized academic, to grasp the identification with country that Mr. McCain has in his bones — his knowledge that we are far from perfect, but not ready, never ready, to take up the vision of us advanced by our enemies. That identification, the understanding of its importance and of the dangers in its absence — is the magnet that has above all else drawn voters to Mr. McCain….

The thing is, it’s impossible to imagine a campaign event for John McCain hosted by Bill Ayers. McCain has done a great deal over the years to reach out to people who were opposed to the war in Vietnam, and even to his former captors — he has acted heroically to normalize relations with their country. But there’s no way he would have been associated with a guy who’s proud of HIS association with the bombings of the NYC police HQ, the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.

Barack Obama HAS been associated with that guy, however fuzzy (and subject to debate) that connection may be. And that speaks to a difference in worldview. But I doubt we’ll ever have an intelligent discussion of that difference.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: Barack Obama

Kind reader offers me a way to spend some of that ‘free-time’ that I’m just eaten up with

Obama should back single-payer again, and do it NOW

McCain’s Bob Dole problem

Cindi’s ‘undecided’ column

McCain vs. Obama: The cognitive difference

More feedback on McCain endorsement

More about the McCain endorsement

Warren Bolton: ‘Why I prefer Obama’

Commenting on the endorsement

Do you believe the AP poll saying it’s a dead heat?

That ‘unrepentant’ Colin Powell

Philadelphia’s weird endorsement(s)

Disregard previous: ACORN is in S.C.

McCain certainly winning the hubris contest

The Trib’s endorsement of Obama

Watch for the McCain opus Sunday

Why I’m not worked up about ACORN

Report: SLED chased ACORN from SC

Joe the Maverick: The third and final (thank goodness) debate

Comparing McCain now with the campaign against him in 2000