WHY ENDORSE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Stephen J. Winters, former Connecticut Post opinion editor: "Here are reasons why we endorse: * "to fulfill our obligation and responsibility as a constitutionally-protected media enterprise to not only be a part of our communities but to also help improve those communities. * "to offer information and perspective that voters can use in evaluating candidates. * "to create dialogue with our readers. "Our endorsements are not made: * "to tell readers who they should vote for. * "to make a compact with any candidate. * "to figure out who's most likely to win a contest."
_______________________________________
Time magazine Managing Editor Rick Stengel recently:
"During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune, under its archconservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon. The paper was so vehemently anti-F.D.R. that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators at the newspaper answered the phone by saying 'Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life.' I confess that I've never quite understood why newspapers endorse presidential candidates. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?"
BEHIND THE SCENES ON THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S ENDORSEMENT In a column discussing the Chicago Tribune's historic endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president, Paul Weingarten, a member of the paper's editorial board, wrote on Friday:
"Of all the articles that appear in this newspaper, few are as mysterious to readers as its presidential endorsements. Readers ask Tribune editorial board members all the time how those decisions are reached. Was there a lot of shouting? And finally, who really decided?
This year, with the Tribune's endorsement of its first Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama, we expect even more questions. A lot of readers will be surprised by the decision to endorse Obama. But maybe you don't know the Tribune as well as you think.
So let us remind you of the paper's long record of independent thought, of reporting - and sometimes making - history. Yes, the paper has stood for Republican principles for a long time. In 1855, a young politician named Abraham Lincoln wandered into the offices of the Tribune on Clark Street. Lincoln handed over $4 for a subscription and complimented the new co-owner and managing editor, Joseph Medill, on his stand against intolerance. 'I didn't like it before you boys took hold of it,' he said of the Tribune." ___________________________________
The Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement policy explained by Editorial Page Editor Vern Anderson: - "Utah's Independent Voice Since 1871":
We endorse candidates as a public service to our readers. We also believe endorsements are part of our responsibility as a newspaper to enlighten, inform and promote public dialogue. With the exception of the presidential endorsement, which is scheduled to run on Sunday, they are based on face-to-face meetings with each candidate and on our own research.
Our endorsements are not intended to tell people how to vote. Rather, they reflect how the editorial board would vote, and why, if it had a ballot. Most often our endorsements are based on positions we have taken over time on a number of public policy issues. But not always. Sometimes we see particular strengths in a candidate that are well-suited to the office, even if we disagree with many of their views. We endorse both Democrats and Republicans, sometimes heartily, sometimes not. As readers know, we are far from infallible. We've made several endorsements we'd take back if we could.
_________________________
BRUNSWICK MAINE TIMES RECORD: Obama for President letters@TimesRecord.Com 10/17/2008
His vision for reuniting this fragmented nation, not audacity, makes Barack Obama the best hope to lead the United States for the next four years. His perspectives on the challenges that will confront the next president reflect the intelligence, wisdom and modernity required to position America to thrive in the 21st century.
Obama's action plan for addressing the critical issues that the 44th U.S. president will encounter on Jan. 21, 2009, offers more depth and innovation than that of his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.
In his bearing and his thinking, Obama better reflects the long-held — but recently tarnished — American values of equality, justice, fairness and civil liberty. He recognizes that government affects everyday Americans' lives, so policies should be crafted to benefit the middle class directly rather than indirectly via crumb-spreading by those who have been allowed to consolidate wealth and power during the Bush administration.
On key issues, here are capsule summaries of why Obama would be a better president than McCain:
Economy: Obama's proposed tax restructuring would begin reversing the devastating impact of the Bush tax cuts on the federal budget and provide direct relief to workers, whose wages have stagnated. He acknowledges that war saps the economy.
Conversely, McCain continues to hold fast to the philosophy that maintaining tax breaks for the nation's wealthiest residents will spur economic growth, the benefits of which will trickle down to average citizens. That's happening now, right?
Energy: From his earliest days as a candidate, Obama has advocated significant investment in wind, solar and other "clean" alternative energy sources as a way of creating jobs, minimizing human impact on climate change and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
McCain counters with, "Drill, baby, drill," the 2008 campaign's equivalent of "Toga, toga, toga," a chant frat boys in the film "Animal House" repeated to make them feel better and forget that they were all failing. — like fossil fuel-based energy policy.
Health care: Obama's plan focuses on better oversight of insurers, which is long overdue; more aggressive cost containment; and better access to preventive medicine.
Again, McCain's belief that unfettered market forces will drive down prices ignores precedents in the energy and food sectors and fails to recognize that health care cannot be treated like other commodities.
Supreme Court: Contrary to the rhetoric that became conservative dogma during the 1980s, all courts are activist courts. The only variable is which political agenda will drive that activism.
President Bush's two appointees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, caused the court to lurch to the right. McCain endorses that swing, which has already manifested itself in decisions that erode privacy rights and civil liberties.
With as many as three Supreme Court seats opening during the next four years, an Obama presidency would balance the recent ascendancy of the court's conservative wing.
Foreign policy: Obama and McCain split markedly on how the United States should conduct itself in the global community, with Iraq as a centerpiece. The Bush administration's discredited rationale for launching the war and its mismanagement of reconstruction have gravely undermined other nations' trust in and respect for the United States. McCain's perspective on Iraq and foreign policy in general derives from his experience in the Navy. Hence, his strategy subjugates diplomacy to military orthodoxy and a "duffer's mulligan" of the same counterinsurgency tactics that failed in Vietnam.
Obama's personal history and deep knowledge of world history make him far more likely to strengthen frayed alliances by re-establishing a coalition of the willing rather than of the coerced.
Character: Frankly, the next president will inherit a mess of epic proportions from a short-sighted and small-minded administration that diminished the United States' stature at home and abroad by adhering to a "you're with us or you're evil" approach to domestic and foreign policy.
Electing Barack Obama would demonstrate that America is better than the way our government has conducted the people's business during the last eight years. It would repudiate outside claims that this nation has become a hypocritical, floundering empire and affirm that we remain a civilization founded on opportunity, equality and each person's freedom to fulfill his or her promise.
McCain served our parents well. Obama will serve our children better.
_____________________________________
Barack Obama for President BANGOR MAINE
Change has become an overused buzzword this election, but change is what this country needs. Change from a misguided foreign policy that indefinitely leaves U.S. troops in Iraq more than five years after an invasion based on dubious evidence. Change from a hands-off approach to financial markets that have paralyzed the U.S. economy. Change from a fiscal policy that has ballooned the federal deficit and shortchanged domestic programs. Change from an administration veiled in secrecy with little regard for the Constitution and American principles. Barack Obama represents that change.
This paper has long respected and supported John McCain, especially his efforts, often along with Maine’s senators, on climate change, campaign finance reform and government spending. That John McCain is not running for president.
The Sen. McCain on the Nov. 4 ballot favors extending the fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts when the "maverick" voted against them in the Senate. The Sen. McCain running for president says he is firmly pro-life although he previously said he would oppose overturning Roe v. Wade because that would cause women to have dangerous illegal abortions.
Sen. McCain, who has a long record of distinguished service to his country, has compromised his principles to get elected. His reckless choice of Sarah Palin, the folksy but untested and incurious governor of the country’s most government-dependent state, as his running mate is a prime example. Worse is his tolerance of his campaign's desperate attempts to paint Sen. Obama as a friend of terrorists because he served on a board with William Ayers, a member of the radical 1960s group the Weather Underground.
As conservative columnist George Will wrote last month: “It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
With a record number of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, strong leadership and a commitment to moving in a new direction are needed. While his opponents have derided Sen. Obama's talk of hope and unity as empty slogans, the popularity of his campaign shows that the country is eager for positive leadership, not a continuation of the divisiveness fostered by the Bush administration.
Backing hope and unity ensures that Maine remains focused on the future, where a return to the country's positive prospects lies.
A positive message, of course, is not enough to be elected president, and we do have reservations about Sen. Obama's limited experience: he has served only four years in the U.S. Senate and three terms in the Illinois Senate. But he has shown an eagerness to surround himself with well-informed advisers and, as important, a willingness to listen to dissenting views.
If elected, Sen. Obama will work with a Congress controlled by Democrats. He and party leaders have a responsibility to restrain government spending, resist growth in government programs and foster moderate policy shifts, which requires building on good ideas from Republicans and Democrats alike.
This is especially necessary because Sen. Obama will have a difficult time finding ways to pay for the needed, but expensive reforms he proposes for health care, education and the tax code. Addressing voters' top concerns: righting the economy, ending the war in Iraq and moving America toward energy independence will only come through bipartisan negotiations, in which Sen. McCain can play a key role as he has on important issues such as climate change and military contracting.
At a cost of $10 billion a month, the loss of more than 4,000 American soldiers' lives and the constraints it placed on the U.S. military, the current strategy in Iraq is not sustainable. Sen. Obama understands this.
He also understands that drilling for oil without conservation and support for renewable energy won't move the U.S. toward energy independence. He understands that reducing taxes and health care costs for the middle class and small businesses are essential to rebuilding the economy.
For these reasons, the policies of the Barack Obama and Joe Biden ticket and its serious focus on our most pressing issues will better serve Maine and America. _________________
The Kansas City Star endorsed Obama on Oct. 17:
We believe Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead the country forward. He is a man of strength, empathy, energy and intelligence.
The Illinois Democrat understands the challenges that await George Bush's successor. A gifted public servant whose roots extend to his mother's birthplace in Kansas, Obama has a rare ability to encourage hope among the dispirited and to inspire young people.
Obama's sound judgment is reflected in his choice for a running mate. Sen. Joe Biden is a passionate advocate of ordinary Americans and a foreign-policy expert who would be prepared to assume the Oval Office on a moment's notice ...
McCain has been a less impressive candidate this year than when he ran for president in 2000. Although claiming to be a change agent, he is following in Bush's footsteps on everything from the war in Iraq to tax breaks that favor the wealthy over the middle class.
Despite his age and previous health problems, McCain chose a vice presidential candidate who is so clearly unqualified for high office that the thought of her stepping into the presidency is frightening._________________________________
Salt Lake (Utah) Tribune endorsed Obama on Oct. 17:
Out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency. ...
The country desperately needs a new and well-defined road map for the 21st century and leadership that can unite the country behind it.
We believe that Barack Obama can give us both.
___
The (Portland) Oregonian endorsed Obama on Oct. 18:
Obama has the best chance, and the best abilities, to rebuild an American economy that has grown dangerously unstable, with government, consumers and the nation itself spiraling deeply into debt and selling off the national future to pay for daily expenses. He is the best choice to rebuild the American position in the world, to restore our ties with traditional allies, to re-make the American argument to the rest of the world.
Crucially, Barack Obama can recall the United States to its own highest principles and priorities. He can change course after an administration that has often cut constitutional and legal corners, and frequently stumbled into policy and philosophical embarrassment.
The Miami Herald endorsed Obama on Oct. 18:
The way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign "on hold" and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to "name the names" of those responsible for the financial crisis.
In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates. That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.
The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Obama on Oct. 18:
If America is going to fight its way out of a worldwide economic crisis that has people fearful of losing not only their homes but also their jobs, and fearful of unending war, then it must have better leadership than it has had the past eight years. ...
Both major candidates are trying to avoid association with Bush's failed policies. But only one does so successfully. On every issue important to America, Barack Obama offers a plan that would pull this nation from the precipice built by bad Bush decisions. The Inquirer endorses Barack Obama for president.
While John McCain also promises "change," it's hard to believe that's possible from someone who, by his own admission, has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. ...
More troubling was McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. This blatant overture to women voters and evangelical Christians who share her views on abortion backfired when Palin in interviews proved she is not prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. ...
There's another reason to vote for Obama. It would tell the world that the melting-pot America of legend has finally become a reality. ... With his eloquent oratory, Obama has already taken big steps to bridge America's racial divide.
[BIO: In 1980, Stephen Fox founded New Millennium Fine Art, a Santa Fe gallery specializing in Native American and Landscape, and is very active in New Mexico Legislative consumer protection politics, trying above to get the FDA to rescind its approval for the neurotoxic and carcinogenic artificial sweetener, Aspartame. [http://www.prlog.org/10070694] In a strictly legislative context, his most important writing has been for the Hawaii Senate: http://www.prlog.org/10056715-hawaii-senate In his capacity as Contributing Editor of the Santa Fe Sun News, Fox recently interviewed Mikhail Gorbachev: http://www.prlog.org/10064349-mikhail-gorbachev He has been adamant and resourceful about exposing the charlatans of the sometimes-organic food movement. Take the time to read this press release concerning California Attorney General Jerry Brown's suits against Whole Foods, Avalon, and others, for either knowingly or negligently adding a deadly carcinogen to their body care products and soap, as in Whole Foods 365 Label products: http://www.prlog.org/10079593]
Comments are closed for this post.
