RSU- I took the main points of the NYT endorsements and added my own commentary.
I sure that you could do the same with an endorsement of Dubbya.
By the way, and of course this is my very humble opinion, but it looks like they are aping the talking points of the DNC and trying to sell them to the not very informed.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
By the way, and of course this is my very humble opinion, but it looks like they are aping the talking points of the DNC and trying to sell them to the not very informed.[/quote]
Or, one might argue, they’ve just been paying attention.
RSU - “Or, one might argue, they’ve just been paying attention.”
No they havent, Dude, politicians sell themselves. everyone should know this, all kerry has is what he has done and what he said he will do. There is really nothing good that he has done so all he can say is how bush fucked everything up and he will do everything better. The thing is, he has absolutely no choice but to say these things. He has not ever once said that bush did a good job on any single act of his presidency. Even to the fact of how he handled the time after 9/11 which everyone else in america agrees that he was great then. Instead he has to point out how he took 7 minutes to act on it. The fact is if kerry were to tell the whole truth and not paint a gloomy picture he would loose hands down. No one will vote for you if you tell them well he did a pretty good job but I think I can do a little better. He Has to paint this as dark and gloomy as he can. on the other hand, The administration has to do the very same thing. anyone who believes either parties stance is 100% correct is completely and totally blind. Those people however do make up a large part of the voting population, and they are relatively equal on both sides. The people who accept the fact that both sides are spinning things a ton, and actually attempt to see both positives and negatives from both sides are going to elect the president. I don’t love bush but I certainly don’t think anyone who is clearly thinking can say the hate him or any of these other accusations against him. Likewaise I don’t hate kerry, I just think he would be a worse president that bush. Not a lot worse, but the potential for him to screw up is higher than bush’s potential. After all according to the liberals Bush has already screwed everything possible up as bad as he could, so if this is the worst it gets, I’ll take bush’s worst anyday.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
As of 10/24 (though this list doesn’t refelct the Orlando Sentinal, who has endorsed Kerry – the first time its endorsed a Dem in 40 years):
President Bush
Alabama - Mobile Register (100,244)
Arizona - The Arizona Republic (Phoenix, 466,926)
Arkansas - Southwest Times Record (Fort Smith) (37,636)
California
The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, 191,802)
The Record (Stockton, 62,139)
The Reporter (Vacaville) (18,227)
The San Diego Union-Tribune (361,317)
Colorado
Rocky Mountain News (Denver 286,004)
The Pueblo Chieftain (52,208)
Georgia - Savannah Morning News (57,288)
Illinois
Chicago Tribune (578,843)
The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana, 39,190)
The Pantagraph (Bloomington, 47,931)
Indiana - The Indianapolis Star (253,778)
Iowa - Globe Gazette (Mason City, 18,947)
Massachusetts
Boston Herald (248,988)
The Sun (Lowell, 50,369)
Michigan
The Grand Rapids Press (139,216)
Oakland Press (Pontiac, 65,484)
Nebraska - Omaha World-Herald (197,627)
Nevada - Las Vegas Review-Journal (170,061)
New Hampshire - The Union Leader (Manchester, 59,605)
New Mexico
Carlsbad Current-Argus (8,030)
Las Cruces Sun-News (22,168)
New York - The New York Sun (18,000)
Ohio
The Advocate (Newark, 22,217)
The Courier (Findlay, 22,319)
The Repository (Canton, 66,014)
The Times Reporter (New Philadelphia, 23,956)
Oklahoma - Tulsa World (139,383)
Oregon - The News-Review (Roseburg, 19,272)
Pennsylvania - York Daily Record (46,554)
Tennessee - Leaf-Chronicle (Clarksville, 22,057)
Texas
Amarillo Globe-News (51,105)
The Dallas Morning News (546,177)
El Paso Times (74,278)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (247,167)
San Antonio Express-News (252,889)
Virginia
The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, 47,866)
Richmond Times-Dispatch (191,732)
Washington
The Columbian (Vancouver, 51,498)
The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, 100,760)
West Virginia -
Charleston Daily Mail (34,539)
The Intelligencer (Wheeling, 20,689)
Wisconsin - The Chippewa Herald (6,804)
Senator Kerry
Arkansas - Arkansas Times (Little Rock, na)
Arizona - Daily Star (Tucson, 109,592)
California
The Fresno Bee (166,531)
Merced Sun-Star: (17,247)
The Modesto Bee (87,366)
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, 89,384)
The Sacramento Bee (303,841)
San Francisco Chronicle (501,135)
San Jose Mercury News (279,539)
Connecticut - The Day (New London, 39,553)
Colorado - Daily Camera (Boulder, na)
Florida
Bradenton Herald (52,163)
Daytona Beach News-Journal (112,945)
Florida Today (Melbourne, 90,877)
The Miami Herald (325,032)
The Palm Beach Post (181,727)
St Petersburg Times (358,502)
South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, 268,927)
Georgia - Atlanta Journal-Constitution (418,323)
Hawaii - The Honolulu Advertiser (145,943)
Illinois - Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, 150,794)
Iowa
The Hawk Eye (Burlington, 19,000)
The Storm Lake Times (na)
Kentucky - Lexington Herald-Leader (122,748)
Maine - Portland Press Herald (73,211)
Massachusetts
The Boston Globe (452,109)
The Standard-Times (New Bedford, 35,299)
Michigan
The Argus-Press (Owosso, 11,438)
Battle Creek Enquirer (24,831)
Detroit Free Press (354,581)
The Muskegon Chronicle (46,505)
Minnesota
Duluth News Tribune (45,688)
The Free Press (Mankato, 21,591)
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, 377,058)
Missouri
Columbia Daily Tribune (18,874)
The Kansas City Star (269,188)
St. Louis American (68,500)
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (281,198)
Nevada
Las Vegas Mercury (na)
Nevada Appeal (15,296)
New Hampshire - Concord Monitor (19,984)
New Mexico - Albuquerque Tribune (13,536)
New York - The New York Times (1,133,763)
North Carolina
The Charlotte Observer (231,369)
The Daily Reflector (Greenville, 25,777)
Pilot (Southern Pines, na)
North Dakota - Grand Forks Herald (32,385)
Ohio
Akron Beacon Journal (139,220)
Dayton Daily News (183,175)
Oregon
The Daily Astorian (8,429)
East Oregonian (Pendleton, 10,236)
Mail Tribune (Medford, 35,524)
Oregonian (Portland, 342,040)
The Register-Guard (Eugene, 72,411)
Statesman Journal (Salem, 56,298)
Pennsylvania
The Philadelphia Daily News (139,983)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (387,692)
Texas
Citizen’s Advocate (Coppell, na)
Lone Star Iconoclast (Crawford, na)
Tennessee - The Jackson Sun (35,561)
Virginia
The Roanoke Times (100,447)
The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, 201,473)
Washington
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (150,901)
Seattle Times (237,303)
West Virginia - Charleston Gazette (49,529)
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Personally, I have a problem with newpapers endorsing any candidates. Period. To be objective I feel like they should never put their names behind any candidate. I like the reporting of the NYT, and they’re even backing the candidate that I plan to vote for, but I don’t think it is right when they (or ANY source of news) pick a side.[/quote]
I agree- isn’t the news supposed to be impartial? Present the facts and let the public decide.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
the “Fox approach” of showing both sides – [/quote]
The Fox approach of showing both sides? Which two sides would they be, the far right side and the obscenely far right side?
Nice of everyone to dodge my post. Guess nobody is up to tackling the core of things. Instead both sides can just keep lobbing thier shit grenades.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
the “Fox approach” of showing both sides –
The Fox approach of showing both sides? Which two sides would they be, the far right side and the obscenely far right side?
[/quote]
Those would be Democrat and Republican, which should not be confused with liberal and conservative, or left- or right-wing.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Nice of everyone to dodge my post. Guess nobody is up to tackling the core of things. Instead both sides can just keep lobbing thier shit grenades.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins[/quote]
Vegita –
I think you’re absolutely correct on how the politics game is played. If this were a rational system, you’d have Kerry advocating what he wants to do, Bush telling us what he wants to do, and we would decide which plan we liked better.
In reality, we get smoke and mirrors, attacks that are either strained truths or fabrications at best – many of them can fairly be characterized as knowing lies premised on the (correct) belief that ignorant voters can be scared or angered by the lies. We also get avoidance of any complex issues that might scare people.
A lot of the blame rests with the voters for being so damn ignorant on issues that they purport to care about greatly. The rest lies with the politicians who are willing to exploit that ignorance, and who know the politicians on the other side will do the same.
Intelligent voters have to know all of this, and do their own research and combine that with a decision on character and leadership skills to make a broad decision. Which issues are most important to you, and who do you trust to implement the best actions w/r/t those issues? I know what I think on that score…
Good answer and I’m sure many of us fellow T-peeps on both sides of the fence generally know this to be true. Problem is why do WE still drop to that level on discourse and disinformation? How hard is it really when we see our faults and others faults but do nothing to correct them. Are we that weak?
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
One hundred years ago newspaper endorsements were quite important. Even fifty years ago they had some clout. Today however with the Internet (add an “s” for the Bush version) I don’t think endorsements carry all that much weight.
We live in the communication age. How many different news channels are there between TV and radio?
Naturally, they might have some sway, but I wouldn’t put to much stock in them turning an election for one candidate or the other.
Here’s another article on paper endorsements. It reports that Kerry holds a substantial lead. Of most interest, however, is that 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing Kerry, and many others that endorsed Bush in 2000 aren’t endorsing anyone.
I know I know I know…but the media is liberal, you say, what did I expect?
Well, Bush beat Gore in 2000 in newspaper endorsements, so please leave that “liberal media bias” argument on the shelf!
"[quote]Kerry Leads Bush in Paper Endorsements
By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer
NEW YORK - The polls may be too close to call, but there’s one area in which Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) seems to be pulling well ahead of President Bush (news - web sites): newspaper endorsements.
According to an ongoing tally by Editor & Publisher, a newspaper industry magazine, so far 125 newspapers have endorsed Kerry ? including at least 35 that had endorsed Bush in 2000 ? versus 96 for Bush. Meanwhile, only two newspapers that went for Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000 have endorsed Bush.
What’s more, several papers that had backed Bush four years ago are now declining to make any endorsement at all, including several in key states: The Detroit News in Michigan, The Tampa Tribune in Florida, and The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa.
In an editorial published Sunday, The Detroit News told its readers that Bush’s failures to deliver on promises of fiscal conservatism, prudence in foreign affairs and limited government left the paper “with a decision we detest but are nonetheless compelled to make” in endorsing neither candidate for president. The paper has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and held back endorsements only twice before, during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt era.
In Tampa, the historically conservative Tampa Tribune told readers in an editorial last week that it was “deeply conflicted about the presidential race.” While The Tribune said it found it “unimaginable” not to be joining other right-leaning newspapers in endorsing Bush, the paper said it could not do so because of his “mishandling” of the war in Iraq (news - web sites), record deficit spending and Bush’s “assault on open government.”
In an age when many people get their news from TV, newspaper endorsements don’t necessarily sway large blocs of voters, though they could have a bearing in some key states such as Florida where the race is close. In fact, in that state, a number of key papers have come out in favor of Kerry, making it an interesting test case of how effective endorsements are, says Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor and Publisher.
E&P did not do a similar tally of newspaper endorsements for the 2000 election, but an informal count done by a researcher at George Washington University at the time and published on the university’s Web site found that 175 papers endorsed Bush four years ago, while 121 backed Gore.
This year the E.W. Scripps Co. broke a longstanding tradition by allowing the editors of each of its 21 papers to make their own choices on endorsing candidates. Scripps used to hold a vote among its editors to decide which candidate would be endorsed, then the same editorial would be run in each newspaper.
Michael Phillips, Scripps’ editorial development director, said the policy was abandoned at an editors’ meeting this spring. “It’s a quaint old tradition that doesn’t make any sense in today’s world,” Phillips said.
The Scripps papers had leaned heavily in favor of Republican candidates, making its last Democratic endorsement with Lyndon Johnson. So far this year, at least three Scripps papers have endorsed Kerry, Phillips said.
Even the New Yorker magazine decided to jump into the fray this time around, making its first-ever political endorsement this week with a five-page editorial backing Kerry. Spokeswoman Perri Dorset said the magazine broke with tradition because the editors felt that “this is a very critical election and an important time in our country.”
The New York Times has already endorsed Kerry, while several other large national papers ? including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times ? do not normally make endorsements.[/quote]"
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
the “Fox approach” of showing both sides –
The Fox approach of showing both sides? Which two sides would they be, the far right side and the obscenely far right side?
Those would be Democrat and Republican, which should not be confused with liberal and conservative, or left- or right-wing.[/quote]
Come on, Fox is so biased towards the Republicans it’s ridiculous.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
the “Fox approach” of showing both sides –
The Fox approach of showing both sides? Which two sides would they be, the far right side and the obscenely far right side?
Those would be Democrat and Republican, which should not be confused with liberal and conservative, or left- or right-wing.
Come on, Fox is so biased towards the Republicans it’s ridiculous.[/quote]
I’ve made the argument on other threads, and I’ll not repeat it ad nauseum every time it comes up - you can go look them up. Suffice it to say I believe Fox does a fair job of allowing both sides to present their points of view, whereas other sources that pretend to be nonpartisan, such as the New York Times, present the news from a liberal bias. With Fox, you get both sides’ bias, which I find preferable.
Speaking of biased: I was watching CNN this morning as they showed John Kerry campaigning and tearing President Bush apart. I thought to myself “I wonder what clip they will show of President Bush, I bet it won’t be as hard hitting as I know CNN to be biased.”
Well, my thoughts were confirmed as they showed no clip of President Bush! Nothing! Not even a photo!
I will be wearing my “CNN LIES” T-shirt on the night of election as I celebrate the end to this campaign with some like minded friends.
RSU- By paying attention the NYT, one would be misinformed, if their latest peice of classic journalism is any guide.
Why don’t they do like the British newspapers and just come out and proudly saw they are libs? Well, that and write with a bit of wit and style, and I suppose, not lie to their dear readers about how objective they are.
If I remember correctly some people were touting the fact that President Carter received more newspaper endorsements than then challenger Ronald Reagan…you know what hapened.