Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

For the first time in 72 years, The Record is endorsing a Democrat

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:11 PM
Original message
For the first time in 72 years, The Record is endorsing a Democrat
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 04:31 PM by democracy1st

For the first time in 72 years, The Record is endorsing a Democrat for president.

Franklin D. Roosevelt got our nod in 1936.

The reasons for the endorsement of Barack Obama over John McCain are articulated in the editorial on this page.

The unanimous decision was made by our editorial board, which consists of Publisher Roger W. Coover, Managing Editor Donald W. Blount, Opinion Page Editor Eric Grunder, Human Resources Director Sandi Johnson and me.

There are many who will question - with some validity - the power or value of such an endorsement. Our decision is hardly going to tip the balance in a competitive presidential election.

But endorsements of elected officials are an important part of a newspaper's public service duty.

This is the third time I've been involved in the presidential endorsement process.

Our presidential endorsements over the years have involved decisions by many different publishers, editors and editorial board members. The Record has changed ownership several times.

Delailah Little, The Record's librarian, diligently combed our archives when I sought to find out our endorsement history. I was stunned to discover the newspaper has endorsed 17 consecutive Republicans - the anomaly being 1992, when The Record chose not to endorse either George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.


For historical perspective, here are excerpts of past Record presidential endorsements.

2004: George W. Bush over John Kerry
Voters should re-elect Bush for four more years, in part because of his leadership under fire and in part because he recognizes that greatly expanding government's role isn't the answer to every problem.

Democrat John Kerry, polished, confident and convincing in the three presidential debates, fails to offer assurances on either front.

2000: George W. Bush over Al Gore
After eight years of William Jefferson Clinton, the best opportunity for restoring dignity and honor to the presidency of the United States rests with George W. Bush.

He possesses the qualities needed to bring America full force into the 21st century - with new approaches to old problems and a pragmatic, rather than dogmatic, style.

1996: Bob Dole over Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton can govern, but he cannot lead. He has no moral compass and no personal sense of right or wrong to guide him. Only Bob Dole can govern and lead. He is a moral, ethical man. He should be elected president.

1992: No endorsement
The Record chose not to endorse either incumbent George H.W. Bush or challenger Bill Clinton. The non-endorsement editorial even suggested a larger role for the third-party candidate, stating:

How about Ross Perot for secretary of the Treasury or director of the Office of Management and Budget or chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers? In either a Bush or Clinton administration.

1988: George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis
The nation is divided, more narrowly than the polls would suggest, over its choice between Democrat Michael Dukakis and Republican George Bush for president. So is The Record's editorial board.

If the choice was based on the tawdry campaigns both Bush and Dukakis have run, we'd be hard-pressed to choose between them. But looking beyond that, a majority of the editorial board believes George Bush offers a bit steadier, a bit more confident hand at the helm.

1984: Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale
It is a simple proposition with an inescapable conclusion: The nation is far better off today than it was four years ago, and Ronald W. Reagan should be re-elected president on Tuesday to make it even better four years from now.

1980: Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter
We reject the view that Mr. Reagan's personal style masks a bellicose character likely to plunge this country into war. A man who believes strength is a virtue does not sacrifice his claim to compassion.

We accept Mr. Reagan's argument that consistency, not weakness and vacillation, are the truest defenses against conflict. And those defenses have been seriously lacking in four years of the Carter administration.

1976: Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter
We recommend the election of Gerald R. Ford because we are convinced he is better fitted to be president.

It is the Republican president who evokes our greater confidence and our least doubt as to the capability of leading the nation for four years.

1972: Richard Nixon over George McGovern
It is true that we live in a troubled society and a troubled world. These problems were not created by Richard M. Nixon - yet he has made effective progress toward the solution of many of these problems.

1968: Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey
Richard M. Nixon's time has come. The hour has struck when America desperately needs him to elevate the national spirit, to direct the nation's purpose, to make the United States whole again.

1964: Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson
The Record believes voters should searchingly question the course the nation has been placed on by Democratic administrations. We believe voters should ask of themselves a question, a very simple one: "What kind of America are we going to have tomorrow, five years from now, and 20 years from now?"

1960: Richard Nixon over John Kennedy
The Record believes there should be no change in the basic philosophy that has guided the Eisenhower administration and to that end gives its unqualified endorsement to the Republican ticket of Richard M. Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

1956: Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
Next Tuesday's election will answer whether the nation shall go forward with the great program started by President Eisenhower or whether it shall return to the ways of government justifiably discarded by voters four years ago.

1952: Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
Which man is the better qualified to lead the quest for economic stability? The Record believes he is General Eisenhower, the leader of the party which makes strongest appeal against corruption and waste.

1948: Thomas Dewey over Harry Truman
An important factor in evaluating the potentialities of a national Dewey administration is the presence of Earl Warren at his right hand - the attack by a "full partnership" of two highly qualified executives of leading states on the problems which beset the nation.

1944: Thomas Dewey over Franklin Roosevelt
By temperament and experience, Thomas E. Dewey is fitted to bring the right leadership to Washington to deal with the difficult problems of readjustment. He is exceptionally well qualified to replace the entrenched regimes and supply the vigor, energy and thought to win the peace.

1940: Wendell Willkie over Franklin Roosevelt
As he casts his individual vote, the voter should ponder this question: Which of these two men - the third-term candidate or Wendell Willkie - can best be trusted to follow the democratic dictates of the election? The Record advocates the election of Wendell L. Willkie.

1936: Franklin Roosevelt over Alf Landon
Mr. Roosevelt is thinking in terms of human values and broader benefits to many. President Roosevelt's course is charted in the right direction. He should get a clear mandate to go on with his objectives.


Stockton is a city in California and the seat of San Joaquin County (the fifth largest agricultural county in the United States).



http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_NEWS0801/809280302

editorial

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_OPINION01/809280301/-1/A_OPINION
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. pinching myself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Whoah. K&R for sure. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. A newspaper in San Joaquin Valley endorsing Obama is MAJOR!!!
There is a reason why Fresno is the home to Freerepublic.. that area is like its own Red State. I LOVE that they did this!!! Sweet!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Can't say I'm all that thrilled
Look at their past judgment. HORRIBLE!!! These fuckers should be ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
34. My EXACT same thought
Look at their past judgment.

The only way I'd pay for a paper that endorsed Bush over Kerry was if it was wrapped around a fish. And the tired, idiotic reasons such as "Bush understands that expanding government isn't the answer to everything" just makes me want to :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. I had to look up where this paper was coming from - Stockton, CA
Well CA is dark blue but I suppose it doesn't hurt to get the red-leaning areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks I was just getting ready to look.
Wow! The Record is clearly inspired by Obama and lays out the facts on mccain(which are always damaging)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. What area is this paper in?
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 04:19 PM by usregimechange
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wow, what a record of idocy and failure
Nixon to "elevate the national spirit"? I hope whoever wrote that got fired in '74.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Dubya "possesses the qualities needed to bring America full force into the 21st century"
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 04:28 PM by foo_bar
I guess that says it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'll even give them a break on that!
I mean, in retrospect Bush didn't *seem* quite as dumb and evil as he has turned out to be. I mean, on a scale of 1 to 10 he looked like at least a 7.5. Little did we know he'd turn out to be a 20. But Nixon... NIXON!??!?! Anybody with a grain of impartiality should have seen that one coming from a mile away. Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. I wasn't born at the time but Nixon always seemed like a Nixonian caricature
I guess he seemed like less of a big joke when he was running, but I thought Gee Dubya was a thug from the first nanosecond so impartiality must be an eye of the beholder thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. You and I are in the same boat, but
Nixon had a long track record that Bush just did not have. Bush was a one-and-a-half term Governor of Texas. Nixon had been Governor of California as well as Vice President for 8 years and a Congressman before that. As many warning signs as Bush had, I figure Nixon had to have had way more. Of course, I'll leave it to our older, wiser compatriots to make that comparison, but that's still how it seems to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Nixon ran for Governor but never was Governor of California...
he was a Senator before becoming Vice President, and then later President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. It's never too late to learn. It just gets harder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. 72 years...how ironic. Happy Birthday McCrap.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. BWAHAHA!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. et tu, Corona?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. Their editorial is FOR THE WIN!
(copied in full because it's so damn good, until someone yells at me for it.)

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_OPINION01/809280301/-1/A_OPINION

Choice is clear: Obama for president

Barack Obama is our choice for president of the United States.

He has demonstrated time and again he can think on his feet. More importantly, he has demonstrated he will think things through, seek advice and actually listen to it.

Obama is a gifted speaker. But in addition to his smarts and energy, possibly his greatest gift is his ability to inspire.

For eight years, American politics has been marked by smears, fears and greed. For too long, we've practiced partisanship in Washington, not politics. The result is a cynicism every bit as deep as that which infected the nation when Richard Nixon was shamed from office and when Bill Clinton brought shame to the office.

This must end, but John McCain can't do it. He can't inspire, nor can he really break from a past that is breaking this nation.

McCain is an American hero, and he has served this country in the Senate with determination. He has gone against his party, but the fact is his ties to the Bush administration and its policies are deep. Americans know we cannot keep going down this path.

McCain, who has voted consistently for deregulation, started off two weeks ago declaring the U.S. economy fundamentally sound but ended the week sounding like a populist. Who is he really?

He tends to shoot from the hip and go on gut instinct. The nation cannot go through four more years of literally and figuratively shooting now and asking questions later.

But the fact is, we worry he won't have four years. If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.

And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment.

While praiseworthy for putting the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, his selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling. The first-term governor is clearly not experienced enough to serve as vice president or president if required. Her lack of knowledge is being covered up by keeping her away from questioning reporters and doing interviews only with those considered friendly to her views.

We're not suggesting Obama is without faults. He, like McCain, has demonstrated a marked lack of knowledge in recent days about the financial mess facing this nation.

But unlike McCain, who is trying to position himself as a born-again regulator, Obama would increase the oversight of our markets and demand accountability. He would actually put regulators in the oversight agencies that were systematically dismantled by the Bush administration.

While the blame doesn't all accrue to the Bush administration, the past eight years have been marked by looking the other way. McCain aided and abetted that behavior.

Republicans have tried repeatedly to paint Obama as an elitist. Hardly. He grew up in a single-parent home and, by the sheer force of his desire and cerebral horsepower, ended up at Harvard Law School, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.

He could have gone for the money. He didn't. He went to Chicago, where he worked to give a voice to those who didn't have one.

That's hardly the mark of an elitist.

He hasn't lost touch with regular people, whereas McCain doesn't even know how many homes he owns.

Obama rose quickly through the Illinois Legislature and propelled himself into the U.S. Senate.

After winning the Democratic nomination against a large and highly experienced field of candidates, Obama picked one of them, Joe Biden, as his running mate. Biden brings to the ticket the vast foreign affairs experience and knowledge that Obama lacks.

Obama has been accused of being an empty suit, all talk and no action. There's no "there" there, his detractors say.

The charge is no more credible than that of him being an elitist.

Obama can inspire, and our nation desperately needs an inspirational leader. And he does not carry the deep scars of Vietnam, as do many of McCain's generation.

He offers hope. A new way of doing business. And a belief that our system of government can be made to work.

He's the clear choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. This is the perfect thing to send to anyone who sends one of those icky RW emails
filled with lies, about why you should not vote for Obama...
I am saving it for just that purpose...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hope And Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. It would be helpful to learn where this newspaper is located from the OP.
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 05:05 PM by trof
'Kay?
Some Fairly Major City, SOmewhere, or Two Egg, ALabama?
Thanks.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberadorHugo Donating Member (557 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Fresno
The part of Cali where all the Morans for Macain live
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. their past endorsement were so asinine - mccain must be the lowest of the low
the most horrible
the most wretched
incredibly bad

to not get their endorsement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. Read Some of Those Endorsements - Retards For 72 Years
have been running the place. Especially the one about Bush Jr. restoring Honor & Dignity - what a bunch of losers. Nice to see they woke up finally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
24. lol Their 2004 endorsement sure is ironic.
Voters should re-elect Bush for four more years, in part because of his leadership under fire and in part because he recognizes that greatly expanding government's role isn't the answer to every problem.


:rofl: I'm certainly glad Kerry didn't win. Otherwise the federal government would have grown substantially! Oh wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
26. The 1944 endorsement seems the most inexplicable and even unforgivable
Endorsing *against* FDR in the middle of World War II, after the f**king Normandy invasion was proven a success!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnybrook Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. The Democratic Party
Growing in membership, uniting the nation, gotta LOVE Obama!!!!!:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitizenLeft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
29. I know Stockton...
...from "Big Valley"...! Loved that Heath Barkley! :) (Lee Majors). I once dragged my Mom out of a department store just before Christmas - when she was shopping for ME - to get home in time to watch the reruns!

Yay for the Record!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. good point thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Princess Turandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
31. 1940: Wendell Willkie over Franklin Roosevelt..
1940: Wendell Willkie over Franklin Roosevelt
As he casts his individual vote, the voter should ponder this question: Which of these two men - the third-term candidate or Wendell Willkie - can best be trusted to follow the democratic dictates of the election? The Record advocates the election of Wendell L. Willkie.


I assume they wanted Hitler to keep Europe! How did McCain not pass muster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiamondKrosse Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
32. you like spam?
Edited on Mon Sep-29-08 01:28 AM by DiamondKrosse
because i'll give u it if you want
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. ???
:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC