The Kerry Tide: Newspapers Usually Endorse Repubs for Prez

Absolutely! I was just reading about several papers that used to consistly endorse Republicans, endorsing Kerry this time.

.

When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know.

Blogic:

If you read the endorsements 2 things become very clear about the Bush Presidency: 1) there is no connection between the reality Bush paints in terms of the economy and Iraq and the world we live in and 2) Kerry presents an alternative because Bush has not kept the faith with the American people.

These were very identifiable in the debates between the candidates and are even clearer now.

Reply #3 By: CrispE - 10/26/2004 10:16:30 PM Blogic: If you read the endorsements 2 things become very clear about the Bush Presidency: 1) there is no connection between the reality Bush paints in terms of the economy

More BS. Go look at all the indicaters. Unemployment is down, stock market is up. What more do you people need to see that this is a falsehood?

You can wish all you want, blogic.

What this shows is how far out of touch the print media have become. We are such a country of ingrates, sometimes. Despite unprecedented trauma to our economy from the aftershocks of 9/11 and the bursting of the tech stock bubble which devastated a huge sector of our economy, not to mention the corporate collapses of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others, we have had a remarkable recovery, nothing short of miraculous, if you ask me. There's no effing way Kerry or anybody else could have cushioned the economy from the impact of all those factors any better and to think so is just Alice-in-Wonderland wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I'm just curious as to what the Democrats would call a GOOD economy?

Clinton ran on a strong economy in 1996 and the unemployment rate was higher than, the stock market lower, inflation higher, interest rates higher.

What exactly are the Democrats looking for in an economy? My main beef is the deficit which is a legitimate issue but Clinton didn't have the war on terror to fight. If you remove the increaed military budget and Iraq/Afghanistan spending, our deficit as a % of GDP is actually lower than it was in 1996.

In short, I am not sure what more the left wants.

In short, I am not sure what more the left wants.

99 for me and 1 for you.

That's what the left wants.

Take all the money from the rich (i.e. people that have it) and give it back in the form of entitlements and benefits so that everyone becomes a ward of the "state" and is then permanently indebted to the government.

That about sums it up.

That terpfan1980 gets an insightful from me. Succint & coherent.

Cheers,
Daiwa

What this shows is how far out of touch the print media have become. We are such a country of ingrates, sometimes. Despite unprecedented trauma to our economy from the aftershocks of 9/11 and the bursting of the tech stock bubble which devastated a huge sector of our economy, not to mention the corporate collapses of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others, we have had a remarkable recovery, nothing short of miraculous, if you ask me. There's no effing way Kerry or anybody else could have cushioned the economy from the impact of all those factors any better and to think so is just Alice-in-Wonderland wishful thinking.

Fair statement,but the recovery could have been more robust had the tax cuts been spread out more.

inflation higher, interest rates higher.

Thanks to Greenspan's lack of cooperation.as for unemployment, in good times workers can be more selective, therefore, unemployment in transit is higher.

The Washington Post,

It usually is non-commital.

Good note, Blogic.

Quite a few Florida papers have surprisingly endorsed Kerry.

Fair statement,but the recovery could have been more robust had the tax cuts been spread out more.

I appreciate the fair label, but to use a topical phrase: "No Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a game."

Cheers,
Daiwa

The fact that the papers have such a strong preference for Kerry tells you just how far outside the mainstream Bush is, and how negatively his policies have affected America.

It is not surprising that the newspapers are endorsing Kerry. In fact the credibility of the mainstream media has fallen because they fell for the Bush bait on the issue of WMDs in Iraq and the role they played as "embedded journalists" in the run up to the war and the capture of Bagdad.

In any case Kerry will emgerge victorious on Nov 2 and everyone likes a winner.

Reply #11 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/27/2004 2:05:45 AM The fact that the papers have such a strong preference for Kerry tells you just how far outside the mainstream Bush is, and how negatively his policies have affected America. It is not surprising that the newspapers are endorsing Kerry. In fact the credibility of the mainstream media has fallen because they fell for the Bush bait on the issue of WMDs in Iraq and the role they played as "embedded journalists" in the run up to the war and the capture of Bagdad. In any case Kerry will emgerge victorious on Nov 2 and everyone likes a winner

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Electoral vote.com still has Bush ahead by 20 points.

When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know.

Well, the NY Times endorsed Republican Governor George Pataki in 2002.

Another poll out today confirming that Kerry leads among college educated voters and among whites earning $100,000+ a year. Even the rich people who stand to personally profit the most from the Bush tax cuts realize that they are unsustainable and bad policy. Talk about outside the mainstream:

"Strikingly, Bush leads Kerry in the poll among lower- and middle-income white voters, but trails his rival among whites earning at least $100,000 per year.
Bush also runs best among voters without college degrees, whereas Kerry leads not only among college-educated women (a traditional Democratic constituency), but among college-educated men — usually one of the electorate's most reliably Republican groups in the electorate."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll26oct26.story

Reply #14 By: David St. Hubbins (Anonymous) - 10/27/2004 11:39:25 AM Another poll out today confirming that Kerry leads among college educated voters and among whites earning $100,000+ a year. Even the rich people who stand to personally profit the most from the Bush tax cuts realize that they are unsustainable and bad policy. Talk about outside the mainstream: "Strikingly, Bush leads Kerry in the poll among lower- and middle-income white voters, but trails his rival among whites earning at least $100,000 per year. Bush also runs best among voters without college degrees, whereas Kerry leads not only among college-educated women (a traditional Democratic constituency), but among college-educated men — usually one of the electorate's most reliably Republican groups in the electorate." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll26oct26.story

Excuse me weren't you banned from this site? If so then, "Get the Hell out of here"!!!

"When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know."

Hi Draginol,

Did I even mention those papers? My point is simple: four years ago: most papers for Bush. Four years later: most papers for Kerry. Most years, most papers are for the Republican candidate.

Unless the liberal conspiracy had amazing success over the last four years, that means lots of papers have endorsed Kerry even though they generally prefer Republicans.

I think that speaks volumes -- or should I say issues? -- about Bush's poor record.

Thank you for your comment.

First, why does this nonsense even make it on these posts? This is about as important as the fact that Jr. High kids elected Bush and the Nickelodeon viewers elected Kerry.

From the Pew Research Group:

Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people especially national journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.

About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.

As of today:

Kerry - 143 (53%)
Bush -125 (47%)

Not too bad far as I can see (particularly in light of the above data).

Well, it turns out in the great majority of presidential elections, newspapers have supported the Republican candidate. In fact, only in 1996 and 1992 did the Democrat receive more endorsements from newspapers

Please subtantiate this claim. As long as I can remember it was the opposite (however, I can't find data to support or refute my intuition)

One paper in California endorsed a Libs bid for Senate seat in California instead of the Dem or Rep candidates, so go figure.

PLINKO!!

"No Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a game."

Aw, Gee, you're taking all the fun out of it.

"No Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a game."

...Except for some of those who play in Monday Night Football. Oops, sorry.

/tangent

I think the media is endorsing Kerry because, like Bahu said in #11, they're embarrassed that they fell so hard for Bush's Iraq and are trying to make up for it now. It's like a driver overcorrecting and still veering off the road.

Cheers.

-A.

In short, I am not sure what more the left wants.

How about power? Clinton's first 4 years were a debacle, the administration was way too left for the general public. Fire Jocelyn Elders, Les Aspin and hire David Gergen (this was brilliant by the way) and the second 4 years moved decidedly toward the middle. In 2002 the GOP picked up two seats in the Senate, garnering a majority, and picked up four more in the house expanding the majority, this just fries the Michael Moore wing of the Dems and they will say anything to regain more control. Additionally, they are being aided by a large segment of the press (CBS, ABC, NYT, et.al.)

"Please subtantiate this claim."

Thanks for your comment, T.B.,

As I usually do, I linked to the source of my info -- you'll see it in the original post. The thing to remember is that while liberals may report the news, conservatives usually own the media companies.Editor and Publisher -- "America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry" -- has tons of information about newspaper endorsements.

Kerry currently leads Bush 162-129, and leads in total circulations of those papers 18.4-11.8 million.

My main point, though, was that dozens of papers have switched from supporting Bush in 2000 to supporting Kerry now.

I linked to the source of my info

I didn't find anything but a subscribe screen there.