The Bee's editorial board had been supporting former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in the Democratic primary. But with his withdrawal from the race on Wednesday, The Bee is now supporting Sen. Barack Obama.
Here's The Bee's editorial explaining the board's reasoning.
It's too bad that voters in California and the other Super Tuesday states were deprived of the opportunity to express their feelings about all the candidates. In addition, how many California voters already cast ballots for Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, who dropped out of the Republican race on Wednesday. Early voting has been going on in California for several weeks and many voters undoubtedly have cast ballots for candidates no longer in the race.
I was wondering if the Bee was just going to endorse John McCain now. This endorsement of a Republican for president by the Bee is garbage. If the devil were the Democrat nominee for president the Bee would endorse the devil over any Republican.If McCain drops out who would they endorse for a Republican? Only someone they think they could beat. I guess they think Republican readers are stupid.
It is really sad that candidates are dropping out like flies. It makes me feel that we don't have a voice at all in elections which bugs the crap out of me. My first voting experience condsisted of me standing for quite awhile to cast my vote while they were already declaring a winner before our votes were counted. The Bee is obviously for the democrats but it is just their opinion. It doesn't mean we have to concur.
Let me see if I have this straight - our election has come down to two Demos that generally range to the left of Karl Marx and two Republicans, McCain & Romney, neither of which have the same beliefs they had as recently as two years ago, who both claim conservatism, but pander shamelessly to the Left - and now an obtuse governor, Schwarzenegger - elected as a Republican, but obviously an out of the closet Democrat, will endorse McCain - is that about right? Who is running this election anyways - the media or the Three Stooges?
In the meantime, Bill Clinton is saying, "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." Slow down our economy? Well, at least we know the Demos are running true to form. They’ve always been good (bad?) about slowing down the economy!
This week is the 75th anniversary of Adolf Hitler's elevation to German chancellor, and it’s about 10 months to go to the coronation of Queen Hillary the Pious, Obama the Proud, McCain the Dunce or Romney the Self-Righteous.
T.C I can see you don't like any of the candidates and concur that we don't have the perfect candidate running. I would have like to see Candoleeza Rice throw her hat in there because she is very diplomatic and would probably do well.
You know what’s really sad - Brain-dead, spoiled, and bratty, Britney Spears in "psychiatric care lockdown" is probably a whole lot more sane and is more intellectually astute than any leading Demo or GOP party members running in the primaries.
BTW, Condi would get my vote in a NY minute even though she is more moderate than I would like her to be - she is a honorable & classy lady.
TC states, “Well, at least we know the Demos are running true to form. They’ve always been good (bad?) about slowing down the economy!” As usual, TC’s “facts” are wrong.
According to a study done in December 2006 by Elliott Parker, Ph.D. (Professor of Economics at University of Nevada-Reno) based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the following conclusions were made:
• From 1949 to 2005 the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations was 2.9% and under Democratic administrations it was 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats.
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%
Not what we’re told is it?
The Queen of Whitewater, Castle Grande and Cattle Futures has spoken to us frequently on behalf of fellow Democrats on their business & economic expertise:
"We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
"(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
"I can’t worry about every small, undercapitalized business in America."
"We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it." - First Lady Hillary Clinton to a Republican congressman.
"Too many people have made too much money." - First Lady Hillary Clinton on the insurance industry. She felt that it’s not fair that certain businesses are making too much money.
And of course, Bill Clinton, yesterday, "We just have to slow down our economy...."
Good choice (even if it took you two tries to get it right). There are a lot of policy similarities between Obama and Clinton, but Obama inspires in a way that Clinton doesn't, and he seems much more suited than Clinton for the job of consensus-building to get things done (without compromising principles). Either remaining Democratic candidate would make a far superior president than the GOP contenders, though.
Even Mr. Morgan and Mr. Murray should find something to like about an Obama presidency. As shown by their posts, both of them seem to love nothing better than complaining. I'm sure President Obama will give them plenty of reasons to complain while he works to resolve the problems left behind by the Bush administration. A win-win scenario for everyone!
I sure hope that your endorsement is as meaningless as your explanation. You "think" he's good. Wow! I "think" I should vote for him too since you so convincingly "think" he's the right person. Your explanation tells me as much about his plan and experience as his own campaign. This is truly sad.
at least Edwards managed to secure a "pledge" to look out for the poor folks...and from the big money candidates! (they're first and second in all-time money raising)...is that what ol' Karl Marx had in mind, T.C.?
Romney has been successful in the private sector and has had to manage a state as governor.He doesn't come off as self righteous to me.The three tenors have accomplished little worthwhile while members of congress and spent most of their professional lives as politicians but then we already knew that. Whoever is elected I'll adjust to. I have a plan for each of them. It's my life not theirs.Mike(D) Actually I like puppies, long walks on the beach and sunsets more than complaining and whining socialists who deal in fiction.
TC,
Quotes taken out of context are fun. Like the following quotes from Bush:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." —radio address, Feb. 24, 2001
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." --George W. Bush, second presidential debate
"My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'" --George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Aug. 13, 2004
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
I could go on and on and on and on but I’m sure you get the idea.
By the way, here’s another quote from Hillary Clinton:
“Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers, and give all people a chance to succeed.”
TC,
Here is the full quote from President Clinton:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich countries -- would say, "OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
"We could do that.
"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”
Context matters.
Thanks for the context! Still .... it’s hard to get by the comment, "... we just have to slow down our economy...." How else can we understand that comment, even in the greater context?
With Bill & Hill we need to carefully parse their words .... and it’s tough sometimes, knowing their propensity to obscure, distort, and hide behind confusing terms and language usage. ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").
And how are we to understand his "sustainable economy" comment? Why didn’t he say "growing," or "greatly expanding" economy? One of the definitions of sustainable is: "Capable of being continued with minimal [least possible allowable] long-term effect ...." So is Kaiser Bill saying, that he wants our economy to do just enough to get by, in the interest of upholding a vague and pseudo-scientific concept of global warming?
Yes, context does matter and Kaiser Bill continues to hang himself with his own words!
TC,
“Thanks for the context! Still .... it’s hard to get by the comment, "... we just have to slow down our economy...." How else can we understand that comment, even in the greater context?”
It’s easy to understand if you can read what was said before and what was said after.
“With Bill & Hill we need to carefully parse their words .... and it’s tough sometimes, knowing their propensity to obscure, distort, and hide behind confusing terms and language usage.”
Like you? Or the Bush administration trying to define (or not define) “torture?” Or maybe like the Bush administration lying (not to mention the obscuring and distorting) a total of 935 times in the lead-up to the war? Or maybe you’re not used to “big words” by a president after more than 7 years of Bush (see Bush quotes above)?
“And how are we to understand his "sustainable economy" comment? Why didn’t he say "growing," or "greatly expanding" economy?”
According to Merriam-Webster, Sustainable means: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.
You sound like Bush when you try to change the meaning of words.
Wayne why do you try and make sense out of the unsensible? Just read and laugh like the rest of us.
Political filters are turned on. Need I say more?
Many things like the economy and unemployment will get better if we make it affordable for businesses to stay in our country instead of going to other countries where they can operate alot cheaper. Devise a plan to keep them here and keep our people working thus able to spend and boost the economy. Healthcare is killing everyone in this country. It is just too expensive. We need to stop all the outsourcing. The Bee included.
Wayne:
"..... Lying (not to mention the obscuring and distorting) a total of 935 times" ? According to who? The George Soros study? Not much credibility there! Coke-addled Marion Berry has more! Demo activist Cindy Sheehan has more and she is one sick, twisted broad. Remember her classic quote: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
Demos and credibility, isn’t that an oxymoron? Does Bill Clinton have credibility? Why don’t we ask Jennifer Flowers or Monica or Paula. Does Hillary have credibility? Better ask Vince Foster, opps, can’t do that, he was a victim of Arkancide..... The only two Demos I can think of that have credibility are Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
Winning credibility for whom, partisans who were after Clinton from day one?
How about Bush and the foreign policy credibility gap among nations?