The Springfield Republican newspaper has endorsed John McCain and Sarah Palin. Actually, the editors avoided any mention of Palin in their endorsement (I wonder why). Apparently, the one campaign decision that is indicative of executive ability was not important to the editors of the Republican newspaper.This endorsement is HILARIOUS!!! The newspaper editors that can't shoot straight have done it again. Their endorsement looks like an essay from a right wing blog.
The whole thing is about John McCain and Barack Obama as people. The editors write that, "an election is not an academic quest for the perfect candidate. It is a choice between two human beings.." WOW!!! And people wonder why so many Americans have no understanding of elections or governance. Presidential elections are NOT about choosing between TWO HUMAN BEINGS!!! They are about choosing between two broad strategies and two broad policy agendas. They are about choosing between two broad philosophical approaches to governance.
Since a relevant endorsement argument is clearly absent, I'll have to settle for exposing the huge holes in the Republican's bad and irrelevant one.
The editors claim that McCain has worked across the aisle for unity and consensus and therefore is the candidate that can "bring us together." They actually write that he has "buck[ed] his party and
work[ed] for consensus." I guess the same could be said for Benedict Arnold. McCain has been a "Maverick" by his own admission, not a consensus builder. They refer to high profile issues like immigration and campaign finance reform implying that his were "centrist" positions on these issues. WRONG!
They write that the next president will "be a war president" and that "McCain can keep us safe." Why? They don't say. The fact that Obama counts more military experts and retired general officers (including Colin Powell) as supporters than McCain seems to mean nothing to the editors. The fact that McCain has proven to be an angry, erratic man who shoots first and thinks later, while "cool and thoughtful under pressure" could be Obama's middle name, appears to have been missed by the Republican editors as well.
The editors call Obama an "unreconstructed liberal" who will give "the political left...a stranglehold" on power in Washington, DC. Oh no! The fact that survey data makes VERY clear that Americans are liberal on policy issues is not mentioned.
The editors conclude their endorsement by explicitly rejecting change. They argue that the status quo - divided government - "would be best for everyone at this time." The fact that huge majorities of Americans are rejecting this status quo does not seem to matter to the editors. Maybe they should start reading the paper?
Readers who criticize the paper for bias are missing the point with these folks. Consistent political bias requires knowledge and a philosophical foundation. The Republican's bias is not ideological, it is intellectual. They have an "anti-intellectual" bias. The only way theirs could be called a partisan slant is if we had a "Know Nothing" Party.
Along with Dick Cheney's recent endorsement of McCain, this one will no doubt help turn the tide.
Jerold Duquette
JeroldDuquette.org