Sunday, October 23, 2016

Newspaper Endorsements 4

No endorsements:

Carroll County Times:

Later this week, the Carroll County Times will endorse its positions on these ballot questions, candidates for U.S. Senate and representatives in Congress, and the Board of Education. After much debate, the Times' editorial board has decided we cannot endorse either major party candidate for president of the United States, as we have innumerable concerns about both, too many to list in this space.

However, do not take our lack of endorsement for president as encouragement to sit out the election. Whether you vote your conscience for president, pick a third-party candidate, lodge a protest vote by writing in the name of a fictitious character or leave your choice for president blank, we encourage you to go to the polls and fulfill your civic duty during early voting or on Nov. 8, especially in these down ballot races.

Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier:

On a positive note, both candidates support the need to invest heavily in our decaying infrastructure, which is long overdue.

We don’t endorse, but we do worry. Our fear is governing will be even more difficult with both political parties more desperate than ever after this fiasco without any lessons learned and leadership lacking at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The Forum and sister papers West Central Tribune, The Duluth News Tribune, The Dickinson Press, and The Grand Forks Herald:

A Forum non-endorsement is not without precedent. In the election of 1964, The Forum, without comment, did not endorse Republican Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater (editorial, Sunday, Oct. 18 1964). But the endorsement did not go to President Lyndon Johnson, who won by a then-record landslide. It was also the last time North Dakota voted for a Democratic president.

Fifty two years later, we withhold an endorsement, and urge voters to vote their conscience and their values first, their political persuasions a distant second.

Sentinel & Enterprise:

The inescapable fact is that Clinton and Trump are viable candidates only in relation to each other.

And so, yes, with two major candidates with the highest negatives ever recorded, it would be easy for the American electorate to sit out this presidential election. But as appealing at that prospect might be, it would be the ultimate cop-out.

If you leave the democracy -- at any level -- to a chosen few, you shouldn't be surprised or dismayed at the results.

So we can't let the American public off the hook. It's easy to dismiss this process by saying it's rigged -- as Trump would have us believe. However, we've sown the seeds for our political malaise at the local level, where voters' indifference with the process shows in abysmal turnouts at the polls.

Don't succumb to that temptation. We urge you to vote -- either for the lesser of the two main political party evils or the other two minor party hopefuls. Even a write-in would be preferable to surrendering your privilege.


The Colorado Springs Gazette:

The Gazette's editorial board has too many character and trust concerns with each candidate to issue an endorsement. We cannot condone a vote for the "lesser of evils," nor a vote thrown to the heap of ballots cast for third-party candidates who poll in the single digits.

We have hope for whomever wins the election. He or she should immediately work to heal the bitter campaign divisiveness that threatens to undermine 240 years of struggle to create a country of peace, prosperity and safety for diverse cultures.

We hope for leadership that favors jobs, affordable energy, school choice and an end to class warfare and political, cultural and ethnic divisiveness.

Neither winner will take office as a popular symbol of American statesmanship. Each consistently scores unfavorable ratings above 50 percent, a lack of confidence they brought upon themselves with actions and statements beneath the presidency.

The Tennessean does not endorse for the first time in its history:

In its various incarnations since 1836, The Tennessean has endorsed candidates for president: two decades of Whig Party candidates in the mid-1800s; 150 years of candidates from the Democratic Party, as it shifted from a segregationist organization to a champion of civil rights; and in 2012, a break from tradition, by endorsing Republican Mitt Romney in his bid to unseat President Obama.

This year, the editorial board is breaking tradition again and instead presents the case for each candidate by a varied group of responsible citizens and leaders.

What we do endorse is Americans exercising their right to vote, candidates accepting the final election outcome, and the new president working hard to rebuild the trust of Americans in the institutions that have served them well for more than 200 years.


No Hillary Clinton:

Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune:

Should Clinton win the presidency, it is imperative she be restrained by a strongly Republican Congress.

One of our senators, Republican Rob Portman, is up for re-election this year. His opponent, Democrat Ted Strickland, is an unquestioning supporter of Clinton.

Portman will defend Ohioans. Strickland will defend Clinton. The choice for voters is that simple.

All members of the House of Representatives are on the ballot. Sending GOP lawmakers to Washington is vital. Buckeye State resident should vote for them.

If Clinton becomes president, Ohioans will need members of Congress who owe their allegiance not to her, but to the people who elected them.

A magazine of note has endorsed Hillary Clinton:

The New Yorker:

On November 8th, barring some astonishment, the people of the United States will, after two hundred and forty years, send a woman to the White House. The election of Hillary Clinton is an event that we will welcome for its immense historical importance, and greet with indescribable relief. It will be especially gratifying to have a woman as commander-in-chief after such a sickeningly sexist and racist campaign, one that exposed so starkly how far our society has to go. The vileness of her opponent’s rhetoric and his record has been so widely aired that we can only hope she will be able to use her office and her impressive resolve to battle prejudice wherever it may be found.

On every issue of consequence, including economic policy, the environment, and foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton is a distinctly capable candidate: experienced, serious, schooled, resilient. When the race began, Clinton, who has always been a better office-holder than a campaigner, might have anticipated a clash of ideas and personalities on the conventional scale, against, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Instead, the Democratic nominee has ended up playing a sometimes secondary role in a squalid American epic. If she is elected, she will have weathered a prolonged battle against a trash-talking, burn-it-to-the-ground demagogue. Unfortunately, the drama is not likely to end soon. The aftereffects of this campaign may befoul our civic life for some time to come.

If the prospect of a female President represents a departure in the history of American politics, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the real-estate mogul and Republican nominee, does, too—a chilling one. He is manifestly unqualified and unfit for office. Trained in the arts of real-estate promotion and reality television, he exhibits scant interest in or familiarity with policy. He favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and “the shows.” He has never held office or otherwise served his country, never acceded to the authority of competing visions and democratic resolutions.

No comments: