http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A447-2004Oct26.html Howard Kurtz- "Kerry leads Bush 142 to 123 in endorsements, and when measured by circulation, 17.5 million to 11.5 million, Editor & Publisher says. The Massachusetts senator has won the backing of the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Detroit Free Press, the Miami Herald, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Des Moines Register and both Seattle newspapers. The president has the support of the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Arizona Republic, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Columbus Dispatch, the Dallas Morning News, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Washington Times and both Cincinnati newspapers."
The fiancee and I had been thinking of cancelling our subscription to this shite paper for several months now. We already knew they leaned Republican, but we kept the subscription because the crappy Trib is better than than the Sun-Times. However, when we saw their poorly written ensorsement of Bush, that sealed it. We cancelled the subscription the next day.
dailykos has an interesting post arguing that the day of the endorsement is coming to an end. I agree. OK, downballot they make sense. But really, if you read a newspaper, if you're that level of news consumer, the presidential endorsement only serves to piss off half your readers. A better model would be to have dueling endorsements. 500 words on why Kerry should win, and 500 words on why Bush should win.
New Jersey's biggest newspaper, the Star-Ledger, endorses Kerry. http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1098593563139280.xml
The unprecedented New Yorker Magazine endorsement: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors It's the most eloquent and damning assessment of the Bush years I've ever read. This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and as bitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in one direction, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedly independent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray the challenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both the Vietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor. The bitterness has been felt mostly by the challenger’s adherents; yet there has been more than enough to go around. This is one campaign in which no one thinks of having the band strike up “Happy Days Are Here Again.” The heightened emotions of the race that (with any luck) will end on November 2, 2004, are rooted in the events of three previous Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, more than a hundred and five million Americans went to the polls and, by a small but indisputable plurality, voted to make Al Gore President of the United States. Because of the way the votes were distributed, however, the outcome in the electoral college turned on the outcome in Florida. In that state, George W. Bush held a lead of some five hundred votes, one one-thousandth of Gore’s national margin; irregularities, and there were many, all had the effect of taking votes away from Gore; and the state’s electoral machinery was in the hands of Bush’s brother, who was the governor, and one of Bush’s state campaign co-chairs, who was the Florida secretary of state. Bush sued to stop any recounting of the votes, and, on Tuesday, December 12th, the United States Supreme Court gave him what he wanted. Bush v. Gore was so shoddily reasoned and transparently partisan that the five justices who endorsed the decision declined to put their names on it, while the four dissenters did not bother to conceal their disgust. There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, in federal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—by cutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery not only of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism. A result so inimical to both majority rule and individual civic equality was bound to inflict damage on the fabric of comity. But the damage would have been far less severe if the new President had made some effort to take account of the special circumstances of his election—in the composition of his Cabinet, in the way that he pursued his policy goals, perhaps even in the goals themselves. He made no such effort. According to Bob Woodward in “Plan of Attack,” Vice-President Dick Cheney put it this way: “From the very day we walked in the building, a notion of sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, that lasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. We had an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election—full speed ahead.” The new President’s main order of business was to push through Congress a program of tax reductions overwhelmingly skewed to favor the very rich. The policies he pursued through executive action, such as weakening environmental protection and cutting off funds for international family-planning efforts, were mostly unpopular outside what became known (in English, not Arabic) as “the base,” which is to say the conservative movement and, especially, its evangelical component. The President’s enthusiastic embrace of that movement was such that, four months into the Administration, the defection of a moderate senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, cost his party control of the Senate. And, four months after that, the President’s political fortunes appeared to be coasting into a gentle but inexorable decline. Then came the blackest Tuesday of all. September 11, 2001, brought with it one positive gift: a surge of solidarity, global and national—solidarity with and solidarity within the United States. This extraordinary outpouring provided Bush with a second opportunity to create something like a government of national unity. Again, he brushed the opportunity aside, choosing to use the political capital handed to him by Osama bin Laden to push through more elements of his unmandated domestic program. A year after 9/11, in the midterm elections, he increased his majority in the House and recaptured control of the Senate by portraying selected Democrats as friends of terrorism. Is it any wonder that the anger felt by many Democrats is even greater than can be explained by the profound differences in outlook between the two candidates and their parties? The Bush Administration has had success in carrying out its policies and implementing its intentions, aided by majorities—political and, apparently, ideological—in both Houses of Congress. Substantively, however, its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and—strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism—incompetence.
This is a surprise. Those capitalism-hating Bolsheviks at The Economist endorse Kerry: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aR91hElkfEqM&refer=uk Given their generally favorable coverage of Bush, I seriously expected The Economist to go with the incumbent. The weekly, which endorsed George W. Bush's candidacy in 2000, said this year's choice was between two deeply flawed men - - Bush, who had been a radical, reforming president who did not seem up to the job, or Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively only once, and that was 30 years ago. "It was a difficult call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq,'' Economist editor Bill Emmott, who wrote the editorial backing Kerry, said in a pre- publication e-mail. "In the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election.'' Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who is the Democratic Senator for Massachusetts, has already been endorsed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Financial Times and New Yorker magazine, the first time in the publication's 80-year history that it's taken a position on a candidate. Opinion polls in recent days show the two men tied in the race for the White House. The Economist said Bush's presidency had to be judged against the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and it said his record in the three years after the attacks had been inspiring and disturbing, the Economist said. The magazine said Bush's credibility had been undermined by events at Guantanamo Bay, what it called the "sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking'' evident in the handling of postwar Iraq, and the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. "America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes, and of learning from them,'' Emmott wrote. "Mr. Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything.'' Given that U.S. presidents should be chosen for their character, leadership qualities and ability to deal with crises, Kerry's apparent oscillation on some issues is a worry, the Economist said. On the other hand, his qualities as a naval officer during combat in Vietnam, the determination he showed in speaking out against that war on his return, and his reputation as a strong finisher in political races made him a strong candidate, the magazine concluded.
Yeah, I realized that. Stupid me. Forget what I wrote. The above post does not exist. But in my defense, he is the third guy in the masthead. Third!
Chicago Tribune Article Hell has finally frozen over. The Trib has never before failed to endorse the Democrat candidate. This is a powerful, thought-provoking editorial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDITORIAL George W. Bush for president Published October 17, 2004 One by one, Americans typically settle on a presidential candidate after weighing his, and his rival's, views on the mosaic of issues that each of us finds important. Some years, though, force vectors we didn't anticipate turn some of our usual priorities--our pet causes, our own economic interest--into narcissistic luxuries. As Election Day nears, the new force vectors drive our decision-making. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...170332oct17,0,4673811.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Re: Chicago Tribune Article Provide link - no full articles - you're breaking copyright laws here. Mind you this paper also gainfully employed Bernie Linicome for years., so YMMV as to how much you trust it. But yeah, it is an interesting read and a nice view into those "one issue : war on terror" constituency. and that bothers me as to the future of America. Viva Festung Amerika Yeah and seriously - link. They card for that in other forum
Re: Chicago Tribune Article What do you know about the Chicago Tribune? The Tribune has been a bastion of rock ribbed Midwest conservative Republicanism for a century. Remember the Dewey Defeats Truman headline? That was more wishful thinking than anything else. I doubt if the Trib has EVER endorsed a Democrat for president, even IIRC preferring Goldwater over Johnson.
Re: Chicago Tribune Article They are endorsing an ignorant cowboy doing four more years of damage to America and the World...yeah, that's really a powerful, thought provoking editorial - they are fools.
Re: Chicago Tribune Article The Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for President. The Chicago Tribune always endorses the Republican. So, btousley, you are lying through your teeth. Superdave's right: It is impossible for conservatives to make a case for President Bush without lying through their teeth.
That is what I do at my business. I would never make public my political ideas. I can bitch about the process and wish it to to end, but never come out and say I liked one guy over another. One day last week, I came around to check on things and the workers allowed a Kerry sign to be put on the front window. I said Republicans gotta eat, too! I then added Iraqi children to the menu. OK, bad joke. I told the lady that I wanted to take it home and put the sign on my lawn and she went to her car and gave me the wire frame. I didn't put it up. I never felt enough passion for any candidate to do so, other than my brother. I actually have a desire to run for local political office but don't know if that will hurt business. I am thinking of reading a few campaign books, so if anyone, superdave, send me some ideas.
There is a good book out called "How to Win A Local Election" by Judge Lawrence Grey. ISBN is 0-87131-772-9. Good luck if you run.
Garcia, what are you thinking of running for? How many voters? Is it non-partisan like city council, or Dem-Rep?
Non-part, city council or state rep but not really decided on a party. I have been registered a Rep since high school, but in the last primary requested to vote Dem, and as I grow older (and richer) I have been going more Left of center. Go figure. Size? Columbus, Ohio, Franklin Co. Was thinking of getting elected to the area commision, a "step below" city council to see what it's like.
Re: Chicago Tribune Article The Trib also endorsed Dan Lipinski, which is pathetic. No editor in his/her right mind should endorse a US House candidate whose seat is handed to him on a silver platter by his father. Interesting story and Google Dan Lipinski for those who don't know about it. Also, write in Krista Grimm if you happen to live in the district. But the Trib did endorse the Dem over Phil Crane ... shocking!!
1. I saw an interesting article arguing that millionaires are Republican, but billionaires lean Dem. 2. How many voters in that? How much time are you willing to invest? My advice for what I think you're getting yourself into, is to focus on getting endorsements from as many of the relevant community groups as you can.
Re: Chicago Tribune Article it said copyright at the bottom .... but here you are ... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...170332oct17,0,4673811.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Re: Chicago Tribune Article At least you also had the integrity to retract your false claim about whom the tribune usually endorses.