Sunday, October 02, 2016

Newspaper Endorsements

A couple of no-endorsements today:

The St. George Spectrum and Daily News, a Gannett paper, republishes the USA Today editorial from the other day and excerpted on this blog then.

The News-Gazette of Champaign-Urbana says the election is too bizarre this year to make an endorsement for president:

There's no reason to dispute Trump supporters' claims that a Trump presidency could hardly be worse than four years of Clinton. They cite, among other reasons, judicial appointments, regulatory reform and repeal of Obamacare as more palatable alternatives to Clinton's enthusiastic embrace of the status quo.

But Democrats are equally credible on the vagaries of Trump's personality and lack of preparation for the presidency. Do Americans want a man like that as commander-in-chief?

There's an answer in there somewhere, not a good one but something resembling a response. That's why our recommendation is for people to vote their conscience with the clear understanding that neither Trump nor Clinton may have one.

The editorial's remarks about 45th president Hillary Clinton are truly bizarre if not downright hilarious.

The Kitsap Sun gives its reason why it chooses not to endorse a presidential candidate:

The Kitsap Sun's editorial board has not endorsed a presidential candidate for the past three elections. The reason is that we do not spend time with those candidates, so our accessibility to the race is no different from the average voter's. There's nothing our volunteer board members would know about Clinton, Johnson, Jill Stein or Donald Trump that any other voter doesn't have access to, so we don't presume to have an opinion that would be additionally influential.


Hillary Clinton scored more endorsements, while Donald Trump keeps his record at a perfect zero.

Corpus Christi Caller Times:

That we endorse Hillary Clinton for president should come as no surprise. There really is no other choice. And that's unfortunate — not because, as many Americans have allowed themselves to be led to believe, the country desperately needs a viable alternative to her. It's unfortunate because of the shadow it casts upon the former secretary of state/senator/first lady's genuine worthiness to be our first female president.

She is not, as has been sold, a mere lesser of two evils. Her experience and intellect would make her a standout in any group of candidates. Like President Obama said and didn't need to be fact-checked, she's more qualified than him or her husband.

We have reservations about the next presidency that have nothing to do with Clinton's abilities, personality or transgressions. Our concern is about the enormity of the task of leading a nation so polarized that angry factions are likely to dispute the election's outcome no matter who wins.

The Charlotte Observer calls her a flawed but capable candidate:

First, those other reasons: Clinton, despite her substantial flaws, offers a resume that’s among the best of any modern presidential candidate. She has been a successful U.S. senator, a Secretary of State and, of course, a First Lady. She brings a deep and broad knowledge of issues and policy, both domestic and foreign, and she displays a firm, measured temperament. She once even showed a knack for working across the aisle, although we wonder if that’s possible these days.

Both Democrats and Republicans also can find comfort in Clinton’s policy positions. She’s one of the most moderate Democratic nominees in decades, with a fondness for trade deals and a hawkishness on foreign policy that makes the far-left wing of her party uneasy. We share her prescriptions for many of the country's most pressing challenges, such as fixing and strengthening Obamacare and attending to foreign policy with a strong but diplomatic hand.

As for her opponent, well, we’re not entirely sure whether Trump is a moderate or conservative. His policy positions are wholly different from years ago. They also can change from month to month.

But that may be one of the least alarming things about him. Here’s what should truly trouble Americans:

He has a startlingly unsophisticated grasp of domestic and foreign policy. On domestic matters, he regularly applies a naive businessman’s perspective to complex government policy, such as suggesting he could refinance U.S. debt. On foreign policy, Trump’s fist-on-the-table approach to conflict – along with his chilling matter-of-factness about nuclear weapons – has prompted dozens of high-ranking military and Republican administration officials to warn against his candidacy.


The usually Republican Spokane Spokesman-Review says Clinton is clearly the rational choice for president:

But she is clearly qualified to be president. The breadth of experience – from White House, to U.S. Senate, to secretary of state – is unrivaled. Her grasp of the issues is impressive. She is not a charismatic leader, but she is tough, focused and cool under pressure. She has a moderate record to run on and her positions are well-known.

That is not the case for Donald Trump, who requires deeper examination.

Conservative Wall Street Journal editorial writer Dorothy Rabinowitz, a frequent Clinton critic, summed it up in a recent column: “Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.”

Remember the question about who would be most suited to take a momentous 3 a.m. phone call? Trump would already be up, revenge-tweeting against anyone who got under his skin that day. For obvious reasons, the commander in chief must have greater impulse control.

From puerile feuding, to “birtherism,” to bigotry, Trump’s candidacy draws out the ugly side of America. He seems incapable of accurately discussing any issue, choosing instead to pull the pin on verbal grenades, many of which blow up in his face. His claim that the election is rigged undermines the very task that thousands of candidates in local, state and national elections have undertaken in earnest.

Trump touts his business acumen, but he’s left behind a string of failures, along with unpaid contractors and workers. Governing is not a series of deals backstopped by bankruptcy laws. Trump isn’t any better when it comes to transparency, refusing to release tax returns that might contradict his boasting.


The weekly Dallas Voice gives its first presidential endorsement in its history:

For the first time in our more than 32 years in business, Dallas Voice this week issued an endorsement in a political race when Publisher Leo Cusimano announced that the media company is endorsing Hillary Clinton for president of the United States.

“Dallas Voice offers a direct and fervent endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton,” Cusimano said. “Politics is never easy, but the decision to endorse in this pivotal time is essential.”

He noted that Dallas Voice is making the endorsement in conjunction with other LGBT news media outlets in the National Gay Media Association. He also said that he, personally, is endorsing Clinton, as well.

“As publisher of Dallas Voice, I am endorsing Hillary Clinton because she is the most qualified candidate and a leader that understands our issues,” Cusimano said.

No comments: