• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Here come the newspaper endorsements.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
I say we only need a thread about newspapers that switch parties from 2004 to the current election or the ones that have broken a long tradition of not endorsing to weigh in for this one.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I say we only need a thread about newspapers that switch parties from 2004 to the current election or the ones that have broken a long tradition of not endorsing to weigh in for this one.
So far we have the Chicago Tribune that hasn't endorsed a Democrat in its 160 year history coming out for Obama. And now the New York Daily News, which, I am pretty sure, has not come out for a Democrat since Mort Zuckerman took it over (though they may have supported Clinton in '96)

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Fargo Forum endorses mccain

John McCain is not the perfect presidential candidate. But he?s a better choice than Barack Obama.

McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, embodies traditional conservative values, a streak of independence and the depth of experience that qualify him for the Oval Office. At a time when the nation faces extraordinarily difficult challenges at home and abroad, Americans should not put a rookie in the highest office in the land.

Obama, with not even a full term as a Democratic senator from Illinois, is a rookie. He?s articulate, charismatic and intelligent, but he?s not experienced. His domestic policy tilts socialistically toward unprecedented government control of almost every aspect of American life. His programs, if implemented, would plunge the nation into a deeper economic hole.

McCain has a blind spot or two regarding necessary federal expenditures ? farm programs and ethanol incentives, for example ? but his overall philosophy about federal spending is sound and necessary as the nation struggles with a severe economic turndown.

Obama?s foreign policy is dangerously na?ve. He doesn?t seem to understand that the U.S. president should not shake an enemy?s hand when the enemy?s other hand is holding a gun to America?s head.

McCain?s clear view of global reality is based in a lifetime of foreign policy experience. With regard to world issues, he indeed does more than talk the talk; he walks the walk.

The two men also differ sharply on their views of the United States? place in the world. Obama seems to be of the school that views America as just another nation ? a good and powerful nation, to be sure, but no better than any place else. McCain believes in the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which, among other things, defines the United States as a beacon of liberty, hope and enlightenment.

Finally, the prospect of the federal government ? its power and purse ? in the hands of one political party should give Americans pause. The nation saw the damage that was done when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House: corruption born of unbridled power, a poorly executed war, economic disaster. If Obama becomes president, the influence of bitterly partisan Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the bumbling of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be unchecked. Divided government is good government.

The new leader of the free world must inspire confidence, not only at home, but overseas. Obama?s oratorical skills are impressive, but they tend to mesmerize, rather than stimulate critical thinking about his policy positions. McCain might not be as smooth, but his record and his independence reveal a steady hand. America needs a steady hand.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper?s Editorial Board.
I'm surprised they didn't mention ayers. :roll:

also i believe their last 4 endorsements are bush, dole, bush, bush
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Fargo Forum endorses mccain

John McCain is not the perfect presidential candidate. But he?s a better choice than Barack Obama.

McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, embodies traditional conservative values, a streak of independence and the depth of experience that qualify him for the Oval Office. At a time when the nation faces extraordinarily difficult challenges at home and abroad, Americans should not put a rookie in the highest office in the land.

Obama, with not even a full term as a Democratic senator from Illinois, is a rookie. He?s articulate, charismatic and intelligent, but he?s not experienced. His domestic policy tilts socialistically toward unprecedented government control of almost every aspect of American life. His programs, if implemented, would plunge the nation into a deeper economic hole.

McCain has a blind spot or two regarding necessary federal expenditures ? farm programs and ethanol incentives, for example ? but his overall philosophy about federal spending is sound and necessary as the nation struggles with a severe economic turndown.

Obama?s foreign policy is dangerously na?ve. He doesn?t seem to understand that the U.S. president should not shake an enemy?s hand when the enemy?s other hand is holding a gun to America?s head.

McCain?s clear view of global reality is based in a lifetime of foreign policy experience. With regard to world issues, he indeed does more than talk the talk; he walks the walk.

The two men also differ sharply on their views of the United States? place in the world. Obama seems to be of the school that views America as just another nation ? a good and powerful nation, to be sure, but no better than any place else. McCain believes in the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which, among other things, defines the United States as a beacon of liberty, hope and enlightenment.

Finally, the prospect of the federal government ? its power and purse ? in the hands of one political party should give Americans pause. The nation saw the damage that was done when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House: corruption born of unbridled power, a poorly executed war, economic disaster. If Obama becomes president, the influence of bitterly partisan Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the bumbling of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be unchecked. Divided government is good government.

The new leader of the free world must inspire confidence, not only at home, but overseas. Obama?s oratorical skills are impressive, but they tend to mesmerize, rather than stimulate critical thinking about his policy positions. McCain might not be as smooth, but his record and his independence reveal a steady hand. America needs a steady hand.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper?s Editorial Board.
I'm surprised they didn't mention ayers. :roll:

also i believe their last 4 endorsements are bush, dole, bush, bush
Ugh, fuck our local paper.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Fargo Forum endorses mccain

John McCain is not the perfect presidential candidate. But he?s a better choice than Barack Obama.

McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, embodies traditional conservative values, a streak of independence and the depth of experience that qualify him for the Oval Office. At a time when the nation faces extraordinarily difficult challenges at home and abroad, Americans should not put a rookie in the highest office in the land.

Obama, with not even a full term as a Democratic senator from Illinois, is a rookie. He?s articulate, charismatic and intelligent, but he?s not experienced. His domestic policy tilts socialistically toward unprecedented government control of almost every aspect of American life. His programs, if implemented, would plunge the nation into a deeper economic hole.

McCain has a blind spot or two regarding necessary federal expenditures ? farm programs and ethanol incentives, for example ? but his overall philosophy about federal spending is sound and necessary as the nation struggles with a severe economic turndown.

Obama?s foreign policy is dangerously na?ve. He doesn?t seem to understand that the U.S. president should not shake an enemy?s hand when the enemy?s other hand is holding a gun to America?s head.

McCain?s clear view of global reality is based in a lifetime of foreign policy experience. With regard to world issues, he indeed does more than talk the talk; he walks the walk.

The two men also differ sharply on their views of the United States? place in the world. Obama seems to be of the school that views America as just another nation ? a good and powerful nation, to be sure, but no better than any place else. McCain believes in the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which, among other things, defines the United States as a beacon of liberty, hope and enlightenment.

Finally, the prospect of the federal government ? its power and purse ? in the hands of one political party should give Americans pause. The nation saw the damage that was done when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House: corruption born of unbridled power, a poorly executed war, economic disaster. If Obama becomes president, the influence of bitterly partisan Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the bumbling of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be unchecked. Divided government is good government.

The new leader of the free world must inspire confidence, not only at home, but overseas. Obama?s oratorical skills are impressive, but they tend to mesmerize, rather than stimulate critical thinking about his policy positions. McCain might not be as smooth, but his record and his independence reveal a steady hand. America needs a steady hand.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper?s Editorial Board.
I'm surprised they didn't mention ayers. :roll:

also i believe their last 4 endorsements are bush, dole, bush, bush
Ugh, fuck our local paper.
I think they got worse when they bought the scraps from knight ridder
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Skoorb
They are completely abdicating professionalism when they do it.
Whew... I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Oh, and LOL at techs being old enough to remember reading newspapers. I had him pegged for 8, 9 tops.
The columnists and editors are allowed to have opinions, that's why there's a separate section of the paper for that. If the NYT came out on page 1 and said "Everyone should vote for Obama", yeah, I'd be against that.
Of course they're allowed to have opinions. But when AN EDITOR from Flaming Lantern endorses a candidate and then said candidate says ENDORSED BY FLAMING LANTERN, it's no longer an individual endorsement, IMO? At least it's not perceived as one.

Of course the papers, news outlets, etc., are entitled to do whatever the they want, obviously... but if they want to be taken seriously as an objective source of information, many people - such as myself and others here - believe they should maintain an image of impartiality.
I think I just have a different opinion.

Quick anecdote:

I'm very liberal in my views and as such, usually vote Democratic. But as someone who works in the financial sector, I needed a good news source to stay on top of business/finance news. For years I read the Wall Street Journal and thought it was the greatest paper in the world. Their business coverage was excellent. I didn't care that I never agreed with their editorials or columns. I think biases exist whether or not the editor publishes his views, but a good editor is able to set their biases aside and produce a final product that is accurate and informative.
Pretty much every informed person IMO has the same view you express, WSJ: good on news, joke of an editorial page.

But for me the issue is that they are a propaganda tool for harmful right-wing ideology, which is spread by the editorial page leeching off the news page, and I stopped buying it.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Remember this oldie but goodie, techs?


The New York Times on Thursday endorsed Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain for their party's nominations to contest the U.S. presidential election in November.

Originally posted by: techs

As I have said, Clinton has the experience and the plan. McCain is not a neo-con, hateful radical bent on destroying our financial backbone and our Democracy.
Clinton and McCain are probably the two best candidates from their respective parties.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Remember this oldie but goodie, techs?


The New York Times on Thursday endorsed Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain for their party's nominations to contest the U.S. presidential election in November.

Originally posted by: techs

As I have said, Clinton has the experience and the plan. McCain is not a neo-con, hateful radical bent on destroying our financial backbone and our Democracy.
Clinton and McCain are probably the two best candidates from their respective parties.
Yes, I believe Hilary was the best Dem candidate.
And McCain turned into a neo-con, hateful radical bent on destroying our financial backbone and our Democracy

 

midway

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
301
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Bah. Newspapers endorsed Kerry well over Bush too. Didn't mean shit.
Kerry got a total of 8 more endorsements than Bush, 213 to 205. Currently the Obama/McCain ratio is in the 150 to 50 range. That doesn't mean anything on its own, but I believe it is indicative of general societal views. (even if that's just the general societal view of having Palin a heartbeat away)
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,943
1,276
126
The Hartford Courant endorsed Obama today, only the second Democrat they have endorsed for President in the paper's 344 year history.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: blinky8225
I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone, but it's news nonetheless. The New York Times endorses Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...opinion/24fri1.html?hp
They had this to say about another pair of presidential election:

'We comment AAAAA for running a largely positive, inclusive campaign. He has not reviled government like BBBBB or played on divisive social themes as CCCCC did.

'AAAAA has been asked to be judged by something more than his positions. He offers himself as an experienced leader who would end the culture of bickering in Washington and use wisdom and resoluteness in dealing with domestic social programs and international crises. But his resume is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims to already be. He does have great personal charm.'

'But it is also true that AAAAA's repeated objections to using troops for peacekeeping and nation-building do not add up to a mature national security vision'

'Yet many voters seem more comfortable with AAAAA's personality and are tempted to gamble on him.'

'Is the DDDDD presidecy a failure? DDDDD's economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through.'

'Wobbles and timidity became evident'
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
The Hartford Courant endorsed Obama today, only the second Democrat they have endorsed for President in the paper's 344 year history.
244... not 344.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY