Another Anti-Palin Conservative

[crazyforgoofy]

I'd like to know for sure myself. I am interested in which papers have endorsed which candidate.

 

[JARNJ3]

I'd like to know for sure myself. I am interested in which papers have endorsed which candidate.

I think Huffington Post is keeping score somewhere.

Or maybe Politico. I saw it somewhere last Sunday..........

 

[DVCLiz]

I'm sorry, I think my list is from the primaries. Regardless, I know who I'm voting for and you know who you're voting for. I don't think an endorsement from a newspaper is going to change that.

I posted too quickly. I posted my retraction. I even said "I'm sorry". Why the snarkiness?

Because you posted "facts" without checking them out, realized that your information was incorrect, and then said "Oh, well, it doesn't matter that the information was incorrect(also known as a lie) because you're going to vote for your candidate and I'm going to vote for mine. No harm, no foul."

I think it's wrong to lie and then try to blow it off.

 

[#1hockeymom]

Because you posted "facts" without checking them out, realized that your information was incorrect, and then said "Oh, well, it doesn't matter that the information was incorrect(also known as a lie) because you're going to vote for your candidate and I'm going to vote for mine. No harm, no foul."

I think it's wrong to lie and then try to blow it off.

I made a mistake. I DID NOT lie. Since you quoted my post that should be very clear. As soon as I realized my post was wrong, I corrected it. Since I included the link where I found the original information, that also shows I was not lying. I posted too quickly w/o reading fully. I did not lie.

 

[Mr Man]

Peggy Noonan in today Wall Street Journal:






http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

Ah, Peggy Noonan.....she really has something "in" for Sarah Palin.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_means_its_over_peggy_noo.html

Nothing new here. Peggy obviously likes her sweet D.C. elite media gig.... Hope they let her keep her microphone when they kick her to the curb.

I expect there will be no invititation for Peggy to any of the "in" parties in D.C. no matter who wins the election.

 

[DVCLiz]

I made a mistake. I DID NOT lie. Since you quoted my post that should be very clear. As soon as I realized my post was wrong, I corrected it. Since I included the link where I found the original information, that also shows I was not lying. I posted to quickly w/o reading fully. I did not lie.

It just seemed typical to me of the tactic so often used in politics to throw something out, find out it was incorrect, then backpedal without ever saying, "You know, that information was incorrect so maybe the argument I'm trying to make isn't valid, either." I'm sure you personally didn't mean it as anything nefarious.

 

[shelby22]

The Chicago Tribune and Michael Smerconish, too.

Does McCain have the endorsement of any major newspapers?

Have you spent any time in a newsroom of a major newspaper in the last 20 years?

 

[stacyp9]

The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Obama.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

ETA: sorry didn't keep reading where the list was clarified.

I heard this today and almost fell off my chair. This paper has been around since the 1800's and I think it is the first time it has ever endorsed a Democrat! Jaws dropped all over Chicago today.

 

[JARNJ3]

I made a mistake. I DID NOT lie. Since you quoted my post that should be very clear. As soon as I realized my post was wrong, I corrected it. Since I included the link where I found the original information, that also shows I was not lying. I posted too quickly w/o reading fully. I did not lie.

You didn't lie. You inadvertently posted the primary endorsements. You realized your error almost immediately.

 

[TCPluto]

Because you posted "facts" without checking them out, realized that your information was incorrect, and then said "Oh, well, it doesn't matter that the information was incorrect(also known as a lie) because you're going to vote for your candidate and I'm going to vote for mine. No harm, no foul."

I think it's wrong to lie and then try to blow it off.

How do you reconcile your support for BO and Biden then?

Their lies have been epic in the past 8 weeks....

 

[yeartolate]

I made a mistake. I DID NOT lie. Since you quoted my post that should be very clear. As soon as I realized my post was wrong, I corrected it. Since I included the link where I found the original information, that also shows I was not lying. I posted too quickly w/o reading fully. I did not lie.

No big, thanks for retracting.

It is difficult once it has been quoted for folks to see the retraction. Such is the internet.

 

[DVCLiz]

How do you reconcile your support for BO and Biden then?

Their lies have been epic in the past 8 weeks....

I'll manage....

 

[bicker]

The choice seems very clear, this year. Newspapers run by folks who want to impose something close to their own personal religious perspective on society will likely support McCain/Palin, while newspapers that believe more strongly in freedom will likely support Obama/Biden. The differences between the two parties on other issues are insignificant by comparison: Both parties will screw up the economy; both will tax people; etc. The other differences (who will get taxed versus who won't; whether to pursue peace through war alone or through diplomacy and strength; etc.) could have some minor bearing on the decision, but I think it rather unlikely that any of those will trump the freedom issue. Newspapers tend to take freedom very seriously.

 

[minnie61650]

I'd like to know for sure myself. I am interested in which papers have endorsed which candidate.

Obama wins backing from three major newspapers
Posted: 08:43 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Three major papers endorsed Obama.
(CNN) — Barack Obama scored three high-profile newspaper endorsements Friday, including two from papers that have never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate before.

The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post all praised Obama's handling of the grueling presidential campaign and the historical nature of his candidacy as the African American to be the nominee for a major political party. It's the first time either the Times or the Tribune, Obama's historically conservative hometown newspaper, has endorsed a Democrat for the White House.

"The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness," wrote the Times, which hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972. "But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity. These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade."

"We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready," wrote the Tribune, originally led by founding members of the Republican Party. "The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government.

"Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building," The post, which has a history of endorsing Democrats said.

With 18 days remaining before Election Day, more newspaper are expected to weigh in on the presidential race.

But it remains unclear if newspaper endorsements translates into a White House win. According to the newspaper trade magazine Editor and Publisher, John Kerry's losing 2004 presidential bid was endorsed by 211 newspapers while President Bush's successful campaign had the backing of 197. However, the president did win the backing of more key newspapers in the crucial presidential battlegrounds that propelled him to victory.

It is likely then that the endorsements of local papers in key states such as Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado will have a greater impact than those of the Times, Post, and Tribune.

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[ginnibobb]

I know who I'm voting for and you know who you're voting for. I don't think an endorsement from a newspaper is going to change that.

I think this statement could apply to every political thread i have seen on these boards. I see people from both sides argue over every little aspect of each candidates lives, policies, etc, etc...... and all i can think is exactly what you said...." I know who i'm voting for and you know who you're voting for.... " Can't wait for November 4th to come.

 

[LisaB]

How do you reconcile your support for BO and Biden then?

Their lies have been epic in the past 8 weeks....

And McCain never lies--- all politicians lie unlike republicans I can see fault in my canidate

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

This is not very exciting to most, but in my town our newspaper publisher recently endorsed Obama with a glowing editorial. The exciting thing is, he's a tried and true Republican!!! Endorsed Romney in the primary, but recently had a change of heart with reguards to the economy. Most people were taken aback, including me. When Michelle Obama campaigned for husband here for the caucuses, he didn't even come to take pictures. Only put a small mention of it on the 2nd page. It is definitely been a big change for him.

 

[DisFlan]

This is from "Editor & Publisher" yesterday -

Published: October 17, 2008 11:50 AM ET updated 3:00 PM, 10 PM

NEW YORK The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 17 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.

This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to well over 3-1, at 58-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.​

DisFlan

 

[minnie61650]

I'd like to know for sure myself. I am interested in which papers have endorsed which candidate.

From the following Article:

Why Obama's Shocking Landslide in Newspaper Endorsements Really Matters

By our count over at Editor & Publisher he leads by a better than 3 to 1 margin (103 to 32 at last count). In contrast, when we did our final count in 2004, John Kerry barely edged George Bush, 213-205, and in elections before then, the GOP candidate almost always took the lion's share of endorsements.

What's startling is when you look at that list of large papers that have backed Obama. It's a who's who of the dominant papers in nearly every giant metro: Boston, New York, both papers in Chicago, Cleveland, Philly, Pittsburgh, D.C., San Francisco, Sacramento, Atlanta, both papers in L.A., Detroit, both papers in Seattle, Portland, Miami, Orlando, Raleigh, Buffalo and more. McCain's only clear wins are in Columbus and San Diego, and barely managing a split in Texas, of all places. It's a veritable landslide.

Link to full article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/why-obamas-shocking-lands_b_136010.html

 

[bicker]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/

Another clear indication that Sarah Palin is unqualified to be put in a position where she may have to lead all the people of the United States.