Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert,
The Oregonian newspaper switched its editorial endorsement from Bush to Kerry. The paper’s editors usually espouse a very liberal policy. However, the owner is very conservative- hence the odd situation four years ago, where the paper’s editors obviously favored Gore, only to see the paper come out of the blue one day with an endorsement of Bush.
In the case of The Oregonian, the major reasons for the owner’s endorsement of Kerry actually were more of an Anybody But Bush line of justification. The three main reasons: 1) Iraq, 2) The deficit, and finally, listed though given short shrift, 3) The potential repercussions of Supreme Court nominations.

Kerry may lead in endorsements, but Bush leads where it matters.

Freedom of Expression? I seem to remember the Democrats going ballistic over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or, more recently, the Kerry campaign’s attempt to stifle free speech.

Also, the Democrats did go nuts over “traitor” Zell Miller.

While freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, people often forget that such expression has consequences. I have the freedom to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but I can also be arrested for it. Similarly, if a celebrity speaks out on an issue, the public has the right not to patronize that celebrity’s movies, books, or whatever. The same applies with the newspaper; if it offends its readers, then the readers have every right not to purchase it anymore.

This is not just about freedom of expression; don’t forget freedom of choice.

Interesting piece, Bert. I’ve never really considered which papers endorse which candidate, or whether that meant anything either way. I did find updated numbers at Editor and Publisher.

What I was looking for, but didn’t find, was any sort of study that linked newspaper endorsements to presidential election victories.

I sometimes pay attention to the endorsements for local races, especially when I really don’t know very much about either candidate, but otherwise don’t pay too much attention to them.

You can’t really go by circulation numbers because most major city papers will endorse the Democrat, just as most major city voters will do. One exception this time is the Chicago Tribune which is endorsing Bush.

Seems to me that in this age of 24/7 news coverage and reduced readership of daily papers, any impact of endorsements would probably be minimal.

Don,

There is a very big difference between dissin’ a party turncoat and seeking redress in the courts, thus in stark contrast to pulling advertising, canceling subscriptions, pulling product from newsstands and advocating a boycott, because of a disagreement. Purposely injuring someone’s livelihood is your right, but it goes against the fundamental principle of our democracy - respect for those of a differing opinion - but, is a spiteful reaction preferred these days by the most petty and ignorant among us.

Second, I’m no longer debating over polling, mostly because WatchBlog should establish a minimum requirement of 3 current surveys for such an argument to be credible.

NOTOTH, you’re correct that there is no credible evidence of the effect newspaper endorsements have on voters. Just as there is no credible evidence of the effect major rock artists banding together to oust a disastrous President, has on voters. And, no one can say for certain if there is any effect of losing three Presidential debates, will have on voters.

So far, 5 editorial boards who endorsed George Bush in 2000, sited in their opinion the irrefutable wealth of evidence, that recommending to their readers Bush be replaced was paramount in their change of heart.

Kerry said it best yesterday, ‘Are you going to reward an administration that lied to you?’

Kerry may lead in endorsements, but Bush leads where it matters.

“Where it matters” would be the electoral college, and that’s still anyone’s call. Ever since I’ve been following it, it’s been the same story: winner will likely be whoever gets 2 out of 3 in Ohio, PA, and FL, and guess what? all three are in a statistical dead heat.

No real surprise about the endorsements. It won’t hurt Bush among his supporters, who will see this as confirmation of the liberal bias in the media. It may even help a bit. Anyone how thinks it helps has probably already decided to vote for Kerry. I have to say that with the end in sight my appetite from prognostication is declining. After the election, if Kerry wins we will all talk about the importance of the debates and these endorsements. If Bush wins we will emphasize the character issue and the nastiness of Kerry mentioning Dick Cheney’s daughter. Every winning team thinks it deserved to win and that winning was inevitable. But most losing teams thought so too. With the electorate so closely divided, this election seems a lot like a game of rock-paper-scissors. It will be interesting to see whose last minute surprise tops the other’s.

So, are you guys ready for what happens AFTER the election?

I, myself, have just finished stocking 3 months supply of food and water. I have reinforced my basement with steel plate. I have also bought two Berettas, a shotgun and an assault rifle. Ammo too!!!

Good thing the Assault Weapons Ban has lapsed. It feels good to be prepared for the 2nd Civil War.

Aldous.

Ah, the papers are just acting in their own self-interest because they know the next piece of Constitution rending Bush will do — right after he institutes the draft he promised not to have — is revoke the First Amendment. W hates all them big words, especially when they say bad stuff about him.

Speaking of W’s anger, there’s lots of speculation about the lump he had on his back during the debates: That it’s a transmitter, that it’s a bulletproof vest (paranoid much?). I have my own theory: It was a modified shock-collar operated by Carl Rove. Every time W started scowling or ranting Rove would give him the juice. The problem was, by the third debate W actually started liking it, which is why he had that really weird smile on his face half the time.

Once again, I’d just like to point out that Zell Miller was NOT elected to Congress.

Zell was appointed by a Democratic governor in a Republican state as a compromise. He’s not running for re-election as a Republican or a Democrat for obvious reasons.

Good article, Bert.

Consequently, when did simply expressing one’s opinion become more of an injurious transgression in this country, than alleged felony drug charges and sexual harassment?

That would be 9/11. If you don’t have yer nose up Bush’s butt, you’re obviously a terrrorist.

Bert—

Great article as always. I must admit I was stunned when the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush. After almost a full year of this election thing, I am still baffled by Bushes popularity. I mean has this guy got to do before the Republican faithful finally see that the Emperor has no cloths? The Tribune bought into the idea that Bush was right to attack Iraq—and this is newspaper I should trust?

V. Edward Martin

AP,

Once again, I’d just like to point out that Zell Miller was NOT elected to Congress.

Zell was appointed by a Democratic governor in a Republican state as a compromise. He’s not running for re-election as a Republican or a Democrat for obvious reasons.

This is wrong. Technically, it happened the way you say, but 4 months later Zell Miller was elected in a special election. To say he was not elected is simply wrong.

William,

“Where it matters” would be the electoral college, and that’s still anyone’s call.

If Bush is leading by 8 points, as some polls now show, then the race is over because that 8 points will translate into Electoral College votes; that may not happen in a closer race.

One more thing: lately, Pennsylvania has been voting strongly Democratic; for it to be in play at this late time is very surprising. That does not bode well for Kerry because it indicates his lack of support in a state that had been a lock to be a blue state on election day.

Troy,

That 8 point Bush lead is not in ‘some polls’, just one poll! At this point in the 2000 election ‘some poll’ showed California was in play, so Bush went and wasted time/money. He lost by double digits.

One poll I saw puts Kerry up by 10% in the Battleground states which determines the Electoral College. Btw, Ohio, Nevada, Arkansas and Colorado are all up for grabs. Who carried those states in 2000?

Bert,

So what? Does any of this change the fact that newspaper endorsements are pretty much irrelevant today? Do most people care what their local paper thinks? Do they care what any paper thinks?

Troy,

Lemme see here, Kerry is way ahead in key newspaper endorsements, 6 of which backed Bush in 2000 and now there are 5 papers staying neutral, all of whom also backed Bush in 2000.

And, you expect me to take the rabid Conservative partisan word of the Moonie Times - home of the ‘credible’ Michelle Malkin - this means nothing?

If readers did not care what their papers think, there would be no such thing as ‘Letters To The Editor’. If readers did not care, what happened to the Crawford, Tx Iconoclast needs a better explanation. Got one?

I am suppose to take as significant polls you point to, but dismiss key endorsement as insignificant because your candidate is trailing badly.

Bert,

Let me get this straight. You have no problem with readers expressing their opinions by writing to the editor, but you don’t like readers expressing their opinions by not buying the paper. Semms like a double standard to me.

Also, those of you in the blue column really need to stop with the ad hominem attacks. You can’t just dismiss an article because of its source; while that may be a factor in its credibility, it is not, by itself, a refutation of the facts presented in the article.

I know this is getting off topic, but can you please tell me how Michelle Malkin is not credible?

Troy,

Nice dodge, first of all. But, I’m not sure if you checked out the link in my post, detailing the fallout from the Iconoclast’s endorsement of Crawford, TX’s favorite son’s opponent.

You’ll find it went far beyond merely ‘not buying the paper’. Canceling advertising, canceling subscriptions and pulling the paper from store shelves, goes well beyond expressing one’s opinion.

As for supposed ad hominem attacks, let’s review. I write an entry advocating the significance of recent newspaper endorsements, you reply:

So what? Does any of this change the fact that newspaper endorsements are pretty much irrelevant today? Do most people care what their local paper thinks? Do they care what any paper thinks?

I reply, that the source you use comes from a partisan hack paper - so why should I care what they think? I’m supposed to take everything you offer up as credible, but not protest when you do not return the favor?

If Michelle Malkin was not a minority espousing Conservative revisionist xenophobic rhetoric, her Coulter-like drivel would not get the ‘preferential treatment’, of a column in the Washington Times.

Bert,

You’ll find it went far beyond merely ‘not buying the paper’. Canceling advertising, canceling subscriptions and pulling the paper from store shelves, goes well beyond expressing one’s opinion.

So what? People don’t have the right to buy what they want, advertise where they want, sell what they want, etc.? Of course they do. Why is it that the blue column screams bloody murder when there is a backlash, but hails Michael Moore as a great film maker? It seems that when the blue columners agree with the position, it is okay, but, if it is from somewhere else, then it is terrible. Take a look at this link.

How is Michelle Malkin being xenophobic? You seem to suffer from the same ailment as John Kerry: you both think today is September 10. We are at war; Malkin simply advocates looking closely at the people who are most likely to attack us. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Do we really want our precious resources wasted looking at 80 year old grandmothers, or do we want to look at young, Muslim men?

What, exactly, has Malkin done that is not credible? Again, it just seems that she says things with which you disagree, so she is, therefore, not credible.

Also, your defense makes no sense. I offered a link to refute the idea that newspaper endorsements matter. The article was backed up with evidence from other sources; it was not merely an opinion piece. Instead of looking at the facts in the article, you simply dismissed it because of its source.

Again Troy…

By over blowing my point (that endorsements do matter), can you prove your point.

I asserted that such opinions can have a pivotal effect on elections, but not necessarily in the huge, significant numbers that your Times article clearly disapproves.

Such endorsements can have the small, similar effect as three disastrous debate performances, TV spots spouting smear that as been proven false and a report proving Iraq had no WMDs’, period.

You cannot have it both ways either, bum. If, as you say, people don’t care what a paper says, then why pull your subscription or advertising?