New York Times endorses Clinton and McCain
January 25th, 2008Regarding Clinton, the NYT editorial board writes, “Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself…” They actually cited the New Hampshire faux comeback and the results in Nevada - both of which were rife with dirty tricks by Clinton’s campaign. Glad to see the board has given up any pretense of respecting honesty and intergrity. They also say that on the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. So it’s not the “ideas” they cite then is it?
The Times was so self-aware of their flawed endorsement the Clinton, they couldn’t bring themselves to even mention McCain’s integrity (his one key quality) in their endorsement of him.
The Times sums up the reasoning for their choices pretty well in the Hillary endorsement…
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee.
Fear.
A bunch of cowards.
– Steve
Stumble it!
January 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
McCain has integrity? If anything, his fence-straddling policies to snag moderate voters and independents over his career is among the least honest tactic employed by any Republican candidate today. The Incumbent Protection act has to be the least true conservative legislation passed, and upheld, law in decades. And while too many Republicans blanch at actually working to close the borders, at least they talk about it, while McCain tries to push through a complete amnesty bill, completely against the wishes of his own state. And let’s not forget the Keating 5. The reason he got NYT’s backing is because of his notorious anti-republican agreements.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Thanks for your comments Dan.
Yep, I think McCain has integrity in his crazy, borderline pathological way. His support for the surge predates anyone else’s - even Bush’s and his defense of it for months despite a constant flow of evidence to the contrary (that is until recently when others are offering some evidence backing him up - though a broken clock is still correct twice a day, we’ll see). I totally agree that he’s boneheaded on almost everything and he’s a lousy conservative. But he’s had a few stand-out moments in my book such as challenging the influence of the religious right on the GOP on 2000 and his apology for pandering regarding the Confederate flag. He’s pandered WAYYYY too many items to mention but the sense I get from him is that the moments I cite above are glimpses of the real guy under tons of crap.
But i could be wrong. I was really trying to justify why the NYT endorsed McCain and as you can see, it makes no sense no matter how you slice it.
re: “any Republican candidate today.”
Compared to Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee; McCain almost looks like Ron Paul. Although compared to Ron Paul, he looks like Harvey Dent. Seriously.