Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Guest

endorsements for Obama

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

Major newspapers are endorsing Barack Obama overwhelmingly. Don't even try the trite argument that the media are liberal, Resmuglicans. Many of these are Repulican newspapers. Even Michael Smerconish, the Philadelphia area radio talk show host and Bush supporter, has now endorsed Obama. Read 'em and weep, Resmuglicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/c...h_n_135684.html

Oh, and if you don't like the Huffington Post, then do your own research. The facts won't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reality Checker
Major newspapers are endorsing Barack Obama overwhelmingly. Don't even try the trite argument that the media are liberal, Resmuglicans. Many of these are Repulican newspapers. Even Michael Smerconish, the Philadelphia area radio talk show host and Bush supporter, has now endorsed Obama. Read 'em and weep, Resmuglicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/c...h_n_135684.html

Oh, and if you don't like the Huffington Post, then do your own research. The facts won't change.

Earth to "Guest"; Huffington Post and "facts" is an oxymoron.

Wow! What a surprise, leftist newspapers are supporting Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earth to "Guest"; Huffington Post and "facts" is an oxymoron.

Wow! What a surprise, leftist newspapers are supporting Obama.

It seems you have a literacy problem. As stated in the first post, many papers supporting Obama are NOT left wing.

I'll help you. Here is a list of some Obama supporters:

The New York Daily News

The LA Times (the last time they supported a president was in 1972 - Richard Nixon)

The Chicago Tribune (they never supported a Democrat before)

Reality is not your strong point, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Earth to "Guest"; Huffington Post and "facts" is an oxymoron.

Wow! What a surprise, leftist newspapers are supporting Obama.

Apparently you didn't read the post or check out the links. Republican and conservative papers are endorsing Obama. Papers that have never endorsed a Democrat before are endorsing Obama. Papers that don't usually endorse anyone are endorsing Obama. So did General Colin Powell, just this morning, a Republican and one of our most respected American citizens.

Honestly, this is what I truly don't like about you right wingers. Facts don't matter to you. Huffington Post has nothing to do with it. They just collected links to the editorials. And all you're really saying is that you don't agree with them. Maybe they're not as far left as you are far right.

General Powell talked about how the direction of the Republican party troubles him. He's saying the same thing I am, only he's being much nicer about it. We can't keep up this ugly form of politics. We have to start listening to each other, caring about the facts and caring about our country. John McCain is running on a slogan of country first, but he's not actually conducting himself that way. He's pandering to people like you. That was the essential point in Powell's endorsement. Don't believe me. Listen to him. AOL has it available, and I'm sure many other sites will, too.

I truly believe that the defeat of the Republican party in this election cycle is a top national priority for our country's well-being. As a people, we must put a stop to this ugly kind of politicking, or we're going to destroy ourselves. Please, I'm begging those of you on the right, respect those who don't agree with you, and think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earth to "Guest"; Huffington Post and "facts" is an oxymoron.

Wow! What a surprise, leftist newspapers are supporting Obama.

Do you mean leftist newspapers like Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6065490.html), The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741576), Austin American Statesman (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/19/1019president_edit.html), or The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10750163), all of which endorsed George W. Bush in 2004.

Or maybe you meant the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story), which has never endorsed a Democrat for president in it's entire 1.6 century history.

All of the above links are the endorsements from the newspapers themselves. All match the Huffington Post's claims. Confirming who these papers endorsed in the previous election is a little more difficult, as some require paid subscriptions to retrieve archived articles. But it can still usually be found somewhere. Every one I've found so far agrees with what the Huffington article claims.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6065490.html (hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since 1960)

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/natendorse5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_end..._election,_2004

http://toys.jacobian.org/endorsements/full.html

Here's a much needed clue:

When you don't know what you're talking about, stop talking. Go learn something first.

It is embarrassingly obvious that this self-proclaimed "Reality Checker" checked nothing. Instead, he went blathering in total, willful ignorance. If he had actually checked into it, he would have discovered that the Huffington Post article is accurate, and that he would be painting himself as a moron by posting what he did.

Perhaps "Reality Checker" was just "2Smart" to figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat in 70 years endorsing Obama.

The Eagle, Texas -

In the past 50 years, The Eagle has never recommended a Democrat for president. We made no recommendations in 1960 and 1964 -- when Texas' own Lyndon B. Johnson was on the Democratic ticket -- nor did we in 1968 -- although we did praise Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey's position on the Vietnam War. We did not in 1976 and 1980. In 1972, The Eagle recommend Richard Nixon, in 1984, Ronald Reagan. We recommended George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992 and his son in 2000. We recommended Bob Dole in 1996.

Four years ago, the Editorial Board couldn't recommend George W. Bush for a second term, but we also couldn't recommend Sen. John Kerry either, so we made no choice.

This year is different, in large part because of the very difficult challenges facing this nation after eight years of a failed Bush administration. We are faced with a choice between Sen. John McCain, who claims to be an agent of change but promotes the policies of the past, and Sen. Barack Obama, who also wears the change mantle, but offers a vision for the future, even if he has yet to fully explain how he would carry out that vision if elected president in little more than two weeks.

Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.

Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years.

http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/Barack-O...e-for-president

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. Some insignificant editor of a backwater bird cage liner in Texas likes Obama, and that's important to you?

Dear Stupid,

It's not just one newspaper. It's more than a hundred newspapers. Dozens of leading Republicans coming out publicly for Obama. The Republican governor of Florida wants nothing to do with the McCain campaign. Do you see Republican candidates lining up to be seen with McCain? No, you do not. This one newspaper is a drop of water in a tidal wave, but at least it gives you an idea how wet the water is. Stupid would like to pretend the tidal wave isn't happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. Some insignificant editor of a backwater bird cage liner in Texas likes Obama, and that's important to you?

The point is that this is a Republican newspaper in small town very Republican America. Aggieland, the heart of Texas, the Republican party core where they voted Bush/Kerry 70 to 30%.

Don't assume this is the decision of one editor.

The editors are part of the community and small town newspapers are dependent upon the good will of their community for their revenue. Picking a Democrat in that enviroment tells me a lot about the loss of Republican party influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. Some insignificant editor of a backwater bird cage liner in Texas likes Obama, and that's important to you?

Wow Tooby.....Obama up 7.2 in the polls (Real Clear Politics dot com is my source) as of this very keystroke...and here you are discounting as excessive exaggeration the post by Bern citing that Texas newspaper endorsing Barack Obama, the first Democrat to enjoy such a motion in 70 years by that publication..............

You are an absolute incorrigible, Tooby............

Here you should be doing the "day of reckoning" thing, hiding yourself out of pure shame for the Republican deadender that you are.......but no......you snip and hump like a crab about to be boiled........mindlessly in denial........primitive and buffoon-like.

Whipping up the stupid assertion quoted above when it is INDEED newsworthy by any newsjunkie standard that the Texas newspaper, "The Eagle" picks Obama as the first DEM in SEVENTY YEARS as their choice.....is a spotlight on the world class shmuck you so desperately strive to be, Tooby.

You are an absolute incorrigible. I tend to imagine you are a lousy driver with perhaps two or more DUIs and a chronic road rage disposition, Tooby.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Wow Tooby.....Obama up 7.2 in the polls (Real Clear Politics dot com is my source) as of this very keystroke...and here you are discounting as excessive exaggeration the post by Bern citing that Texas newspaper endorsing Barack Obama, the first Democrat to enjoy such a motion in 70 years by that publication..............

You are an absolute incorrigible, Tooby............

Here you should be doing the "day of reckoning" thing, hiding yourself out of pure shame for the Republican deadender that you are.......but no......you snip and hump like a crab about to be boiled........mindlessly in denial........primitive and buffoon-like.

Whipping up the stupid assertion quoted above when it is INDEED newsworthy by any newsjunkie standard that the Texas newspaper, "The Eagle" picks Obama as the first DEM in SEVENTY YEARS as their choice.....is a spotlight on the world class shmuck you so desperately strive to be, Tooby.

You are an absolute incorrigible. I tend to imagine you are a lousy driver with perhaps two or more DUIs and a chronic road rage disposition, Tooby.:lol:

Better stick to cutting and pasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lincoln Logger
Wow Tooby.....Obama up 7.2 in the polls (Real Clear Politics dot com is my source) as of this very keystroke...and here you are discounting as excessive exaggeration the post by Bern citing that Texas newspaper endorsing Barack Obama, the first Democrat to enjoy such a motion in 70 years by that publication..............

You are an absolute incorrigible, Tooby............

Here you should be doing the "day of reckoning" thing, hiding yourself out of pure shame for the Republican deadender that you are.......but no......you snip and hump like a crab about to be boiled........mindlessly in denial........primitive and buffoon-like.

Whipping up the stupid assertion quoted above when it is INDEED newsworthy by any newsjunkie standard that the Texas newspaper, "The Eagle" picks Obama as the first DEM in SEVENTY YEARS as their choice.....is a spotlight on the world class shmuck you so desperately strive to be, Tooby.

You are an absolute incorrigible. I tend to imagine you are a lousy driver with perhaps two or more DUIs and a chronic road rage disposition, Tooby.:lol:

Many you should type in a bigger font ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that this is a Republican newspaper in small town very Republican America. Aggieland, the heart of Texas, the Republican party core where they voted Bush/Kerry 70 to 30%.

Don't assume this is the decision of one editor.

The editors are part of the community and small town newspapers are dependent upon the good will of their community for their revenue. Picking a Democrat in that enviroment tells me a lot about the loss of Republican party influence.

Bryan/College Station, home of Texas A&M University, which is likely the most conservative university in the country.

Also home of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library.

And probably (no stats on this one, going by my extensive connections there) home of the single largest concentration of young Republicans in the country.

Really, this is the ABSOLUTE LAST newspaper I'd expect to see endorsing Obama. Wowsa.

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Earth to "Guest"; Huffington Post and "facts" is an oxymoron.

Wow! What a surprise, leftist newspapers are supporting Obama.

The Chicago Tribune is not a leftist newspaper, and it's endorsed Obama.

Spin that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul

Yesterday William Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, endorsed Obama, calling him a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime leader. Weld is known as a fiscal conservative. This is a very significant endorsement, and the mound of endorsements from Republicans is very telling.

The die-hard Republicans who wouldn't vote for Obama if you put a gun to their heads argue: "You never listened to Republicans before, why now?" That misses the point. I don't agree with Republicans on many issues. Their endorsement doesn't change my vote, since I'm already for Obama. A long string of endorsements like this should be significant to other Republicans. When a Republican endorses a Democrat, it's the Republicans who should be listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Yesterday William Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, endorsed Obama, calling him a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime leader. Weld is known as a fiscal conservative. This is a very significant endorsement, and the mound of endorsements from Republicans is very telling.

The die-hard Republicans who wouldn't vote for Obama if you put a gun to their heads argue: "You never listened to Republicans before, why now?" That misses the point. I don't agree with Republicans on many issues. Their endorsement doesn't change my vote, since I'm already for Obama. A long string of endorsements like this should be significant to other Republicans. When a Republican endorses a Democrat, it's the Republicans who should be listening.

So you don't have a problem with Obama's friendship with William Ayres, a domestic terrorist, Rev. Wright, a white-hating racist or Rezco, a convicted felon who had financial dealings with Obama? How about Obama's 144 days in the Senate? How about his only work experience being a "community organizer". How about him telling Joe the Plumber he wanted to take some of his money and spread it around? How about his running-mates inability to count to 4? Sounds like a real dream-team you're supporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
So you don't have a problem with Obama's friendship with William Ayres, a domestic terrorist, Rev. Wright, a white-hating racist or Rezco, a convicted felon who had financial dealings with Obama? How about Obama's 144 days in the Senate? How about his only work experience being a "community organizer". How about him telling Joe the Plumber he wanted to take some of his money and spread it around? How about his running-mates inability to count to 4? Sounds like a real dream-team you're supporting.

Sounds to me like you're in a blind rage, a dark fantasy world that you choose to live in. We've been over all of this ad nauseam. Barack Obama has proved himself to be the most level-headed presidential candidate we have ever seen. Even John McCain had to admit that there is no reason to fear an Obama presidency. You don't like the fact that many, many Republicans have endorsed him, but you refuse to deal with the reality of their endorsements, so you try to make it personal to me. You're completely distorting the facts.

Take Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a/k/a Joe the Plumber, who is not the independent he claims to be but a donor to at least one Republican campaign this election cycle. If he was thinking straight, he would realize that he has taken a bath under the Republicans, who have been redistributing wealth all the while they've been in power. They've been taking money that should have been his and giving it to the super-rich. That's socialism, too, but it's for the benefit of the rich. I would think you would understand that, unless maybe you're very rich and don't care, which I doubt. As Obama told Mr. Wurzelbacher, he would have done better under Obama's tax policies these past eight years, had they been in place, so that he would be in a better position today to afford the plumbing business he can only dream about buying. For some reason, none of that seems to matter to Mr. Wurzelbacher. I don't understand why people like "Joe" or you can't see past your own nose. The only way Obama's tax plan is going to result in more taxes for "Joe" is if Joe somehow manages to quadruple his yearly income. He can dream all he wants, but the reality is he's probably never going to be able to buy his boss' business. But he would have had a better chance under Obama's policies than under McCain's.

What I have a problem with is electing a candidate whose vision is in the past. We need a change from the knee-jerk philosophy of the present era, which McCain has always proudly supported, to a vision that recognizes that government has an important role to play in our economy and in the world; and that we should never have abandoned what we had once learned as a result of the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

1. Obama understands the need to develop new sources of energy long-term. McCain has opposed that his entire career.

2. Obama understands the need for regulation. McCain has spent an entire career championing deregulation.

3. Obama understands the need to get out of Iraq and stop spending our money there. McCain will keep us there longer.

4. Obama understands that we must fight and destroy terrorism where it is. McCain supported the policies that took our eye off the ball.

5. Obama understands the importance of making health care accessible to everyone. McCain has a policy that sounds good until you realize that it will result in 20 million more Americans not having health insurance, plus he wants to tax your benefits.

6. Obama understands the vital importance of reversing the dangerous decline in math and science education. McCain would stick to the traditional Republican hands-off policies that have allowed this to occur.

Simply put, Obama understands the future. McCain does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Sounds to me like you're in a blind rage, a dark fantasy world that you choose to live in. We've been over all of this ad nauseam. Barack Obama has proved himself to be the most level-headed presidential candidate we have ever seen. Even John McCain had to admit that there is no reason to fear an Obama presidency. You don't like the fact that many, many Republicans have endorsed him, but you refuse to deal with the reality of their endorsements, so you try to make it personal to me. You're completely distorting the facts.

Take Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a/k/a Joe the Plumber, who is not the independent he claims to be but a donor to at least one Republican campaign this election cycle. If he was thinking straight, he would realize that he has taken a bath under the Republicans, who have been redistributing wealth all the while they've been in power. They've been taking money that should have been his and giving it to the super-rich. That's socialism, too, but it's for the benefit of the rich. I would think you would understand that, unless maybe you're very rich and don't care, which I doubt. As Obama told Mr. Wurzelbacher, he would have done better under Obama's tax policies these past eight years, had they been in place, so that he would be in a better position today to afford the plumbing business he can only dream about buying. For some reason, none of that seems to matter to Mr. Wurzelbacher. I don't understand why people like "Joe" or you can't see past your own nose. The only way Obama's tax plan is going to result in more taxes for "Joe" is if Joe somehow manages to quadruple his yearly income. He can dream all he wants, but the reality is he's probably never going to be able to buy his boss' business. But he would have had a better chance under Obama's policies than under McCain's.

What I have a problem with is electing a candidate whose vision is in the past. We need a change from the knee-jerk philosophy of the present era, which McCain has always proudly supported, to a vision that recognizes that government has an important role to play in our economy and in the world; and that we should never have abandoned what we had once learned as a result of the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

1. Obama understands the need to develop new sources of energy long-term. McCain has opposed that his entire career.

2. Obama understands the need for regulation. McCain has spent an entire career championing deregulation.

3. Obama understands the need to get out of Iraq and stop spending our money there. McCain will keep us there longer.

4. Obama understands that we must fight and destroy terrorism where it is. McCain supported the policies that took our eye off the ball.

5. Obama understands the importance of making health care accessible to everyone. McCain has a policy that sounds good until you realize that it will result in 20 million more Americans not having health insurance, plus he wants to tax your benefits.

6. Obama understands the vital importance of reversing the dangerous decline in math and science education. McCain would stick to the traditional Republican hands-off policies that have allowed this to occur.

Simply put, Obama understands the future. McCain does not.

Simply put, you don't want to talk about Obama's terrorist connections, his Marxist economic ideas or his lack of experience of any type. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Simply put, you don't want to talk about Obama's terrorist connections, his Marxist economic ideas or his lack of experience of any type. Got it.

I'm not interested in your spin, wild exaggerations and untruths. You're right if you'd say it accurately. I'm interested in the issues that affect our lives and will shape our future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loki
Yesterday William Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, endorsed Obama, calling him a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime leader. Weld is known as a fiscal conservative. This is a very significant endorsement, and the mound of endorsements from Republicans is very telling.

The die-hard Republicans who wouldn't vote for Obama if you put a gun to their heads argue: "You never listened to Republicans before, why now?" That misses the point. I don't agree with Republicans on many issues. Their endorsement doesn't change my vote, since I'm already for Obama. A long string of endorsements like this should be significant to other Republicans. When a Republican endorses a Democrat, it's the Republicans who should be listening.

So, Paul, following this logic, has Lieberman changed your mind. LOL. Just a joke, don't take offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lincoln Logger
I'm not interested in your spin, wild exaggerations and untruths. You're right if you'd say it accurately. I'm interested in the issues that affect our lives and will shape our future.

That's mainly the point that you have made in just about every one of your posts. You are really not interested in anyone's view except your own. You feel that no one else opinions have any affect on what is going on in the world and you think you have all the answers. How insecure you really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
So, Paul, following this logic, has Lieberman changed your mind. LOL. Just a joke, don't take offense.

OK, I won't take offense, but I hope you don't mind if I point out (1) that a liberal Democrat like me never agreed with Lieberman in the first place, (2) that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, (3) that one Lieberman does not equal Powell, Weld, Will and the scores of other top Republicans who have endorsed Obama.

A drop of water won't drown you. An ocean can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
That's mainly the point that you have made in just about every one of your posts. You are really not interested in anyone's view except your own. You feel that no one else opinions have any affect on what is going on in the world and you think you have all the answers. How insecure you really are.

No, that's not the point I've made. If you would actually read my posts, you would see some substance. There was no substance in the post I criticized. That's why I criticized it in the way I did.

I do it that way because I believe opinions should be based on facts, which are then tied together with reason. If you want to make an argument, back it up with facts and reason. I have very little patience when that is not done. Like it or don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...