October 18, 2004

News Flash: More Liberal Tools Endorse Kerry!

Mark from New Patriot notes that morenewspapers are endorsing John Kerry, in a move that should shock the casual observer, since it's not only exactly what they have done in every election in recent memory, but it's exactly what every Republican has been predicting with a wry grin since the beginning of the campaign - with one stunning exception.

Desrosiers says:

This probably says more about Bush's singularly awful performance as President than it does about Kerry's greatness.
Or - I suggest this is more likely - it says that the liberal-slanted mainstream media had their endorsements written long before the campaign began; had the Democrat convention endorsed a set of wind-up chattering teeth for President, the New York Times would be saying "We believe that with Mr. Windup Chatteringteeth as president, the nation will do better."

Desrosiers gets one thing right, however, proving that the local leftybloggers are better than the giggly fratboys that dominate leftyblogs nationwide:

In fact, most of the endorsments I read today seem to do more kicking around of Bush than praising of Kerry
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

UPDATE: Welcome, visitors from Pandagon - two of the guys I had in mind when I said our local leftybloggers were better than the national ones. By the way, when they say I'm "playing to type" - er, yeah. I'm a conservative, and a critic of the media. Can't sneak a thing past 'em!

While you're here, check out my good friends at Fraters. They noticed a few odd, er, synchronicities in the various endorsements. Think about it for a while.

But hey - welcome! Feel free to engage in reasoned conversation. Then go back and show the Wonder Twins how to do it!

Posted by Mitch at October 18, 2004 05:03 AM | TrackBack

Life is like a box of chocolate.

Posted by: Forrest Gump at October 18, 2004 09:11 AM

One thing the wonder twins did note, Mitch--in 2000, Bush had a 3-1 edge in endorsements.

By that measure, has our media been conservative for the past four years? Oh, wait....

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 18, 2004 10:07 AM

But this isn't 2000, and anyone who thought the Prez would get an endorsement from the NYTimes, the WaPo, the LATimes, the Strib or the ChiTrib was completely nuts.

Oh, wait.

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 10:16 AM

Mitch, do you ever both researching before you shoot your mouth off?

The Chicago Tribune is widely known for its conservative editorials.

And it endorsed Bush in 2000.

Hey, by the way, I hear that we just froze Zarqawi's assets! Awesome! Way to get him back for his bombing of the UN 2003.

But I guess I'm just living in the "reality-based" community.

Posted by: Luke Francl at October 18, 2004 10:22 AM

The ChiTrib is widely known for having *some* conservative editorial writers. It is not known as a conservative paper. Far from it.

So the question is, do you actually read things before you shoot *your* mouth off? I was talking about the number of leftyblogs who are writing breathless little stories like "If newspapers voted, Kerry'd be winning! w00t w00t!", as if the outcome at papers like the NYTimes, the Strib and the LATimes weren't foreordained.

Come up with any exceptions you want, Luke. Show me anyone that *ever* expected even a close plurality of endorsements for Bush. And show me any conservatives who care.

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 10:39 AM

Re Zarq's assets: Wow. Sure is about time. Too bad it wasn't done before, say, 1999.

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 10:41 AM

Mitch, by the numbers, more papers endorsed Bush than Gore. If a 75% of these papers stick with their choice, more will endorse him this year.

I don't know if conservatives care. Most politically literate people probably don't care much, since newspaper endorsements don't make a big difference. But the Bush campaign certainly seems to care, the way they trumpet each endorsement they've received.

As long as we're time travelling: Too bad the Republicans couldn't let Bill Clinton have his affairs in private, like Jack Kennedy, so he would've been able to focus on fighting terrorists in 1999.

Posted by: Luke Francl at October 18, 2004 11:29 AM

Yes, I know, a bunch of papers endorsed Bush. I know most of the papers in Montana and Wyoming were on board. But how many of them were in the top 15 markets? The ChiTrib, the PiPress...a very few others. The big opinion-makers - not to mention all the broadcast networks - were pretty thoroughly in the tank for Gore, and will be for Kerry.

Do conservatives care? I doubt it. We trumpet the few we DO get, and regard the rest as further proof (were any needed) of liberal bias.

So you're saying that *impeachment* was the only thing standing between Clinton and a war on terror? That's a new one!

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 11:38 AM

Mitch, the ChiTrib has endorsed one Democrat in the last century.

That's a pro-republican paper.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 18, 2004 12:28 PM

No, that's a paper whose editorial board or publisher cranks out an endorsement every four years for a Republican.

I suspect there's someone out there who thinks their day-to-day coverage is "conservative". They are the same people who thought Kucinich was too right-wing.

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 12:35 PM

Shame on you Mitch for not being up on Chicago Trib electoral trivia and not citing the endorsement history of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader or the Mobile Register. I guess that invalidates your whoooole point.

Hard to argue with great minds like Jesse and Ezra. They give Ollie "Uncle Fester" Willis a run for his money in the race for the "dumbest lefty" cup.

Posted by: Troy Martin at October 18, 2004 01:40 PM

Luke Frand said:

"Too bad the Republicans couldn't let Bill Clinton have his affairs in private, like Jack Kennedy, so he would've been able to focus on fighting terrorists in 1999."

This is the best example of convoluted lefty "logic" I've seen in quite some time. Lemme see: Terrorism is the natural outcome of those bad Republicans not letting the Prez get away with unlimited BJ's in the Oval Office.

Uh, oooooo-kay!

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 18, 2004 03:25 PM

Yeah, Pete. I see *Luke* called Mitch's post "poorly argued" on their little blog. Wow. There's praise by faint damnation for you.

Posted by: Alison at October 18, 2004 03:33 PM

But this post *is* poorly argued: you botch the basic facts in the very first sentence! Newspapers overwhelmingly endorsed Bush in 2000; now they're not. Even conservative papers such as the Tampa Tribune are angry: "[W]e are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a 'uniter not a divider' within the United States and the world."

In other words, the overwhelming endorsement of Kerry (which is more a non-endorsement of Bush, really) is symptomatic not of a 'liberal media' but of a failed presidency.

So were the wry grins of Republican seers really acknowledgments of this fact, that their "compassionate conservative" candidate was really a blinkered zealot who had plunged the country into the deep red and alienated most of his centrist support base?

Posted by: Mark Desrosiers at October 18, 2004 06:54 PM

Thanks for the assist, Mark.

Now to break out the sarcasm stick on the other commenters, try reading "Against All Enemies" by noted lefty Richard Clarke. I was making a sarcastic take on Clarke's argument in that book that Clinton's personal failings -- and the Republicans insatiable desire to bring him down by any means necessary -- took his administration's focus off terrorism.

I know it doesn't fit into your story line of the do-nothing Clinton presidency, but he was obsessed with Al Qaeda. In the pre-9/11 world (and fighting for his political life), his options were limited. But at least he recognized the threat, unlike the Cold Warriors in the Bush administration who required 9/11 to "change everything" before they would act.

But I digress.

Posted by: Luke Francl at October 18, 2004 07:33 PM


Not to put too fine a point on it, but - bullshit. I could care less about endorsements, certainly about counting them. And while a majority of papers may have backed Bush in '00, how many of them were in the top 15 markets? The PiPress, the ChiTrib...???

And the NY/LATimes would have endorsed Kerry if he'd been caught diddling Girl Scouts.

You wanna quibble about who endorsed whom, when? Knock yourself out. It's irrelevant to my post as well as the election.

Posted by: mitch at October 18, 2004 07:34 PM

Another example of lefty fact spinning. By their logic an endorsement by the NYT, WaPo, or LAT counts the same as an endorsement by the Hooterville Gazette.

If you picked up a random newspaper off the street in 2000 it overwhelmingly endorsed Gore. (I'd hazard a guess of maybe 80% of all copies in print.)

Mitch, are these really supposed to be specimens the left's A-team?

Posted by: Gideon at October 18, 2004 08:48 PM

Liberal media, liberal media, blah, blah.

Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 10:55 PM

I address Mitch's concern about the "top 15" endorsements here:

Surprise: he's wrong.

Posted by: Luke Francl at October 20, 2004 11:04 AM

I have a point to make about editorial endorsements. But if I'm proven wrong, then nevermind, editorial endorsements don't matter.

Posted by: dave at October 20, 2004 10:40 PM

Newspapers are endorsing Kerry at a 128-105 ratio because Bush is arguably the most incompetent-incumbent President in U.S. history. That it is even this close betrays how heavy-handed the conservative newspaper owners must be.

Posted by: D-Menace at October 26, 2004 09:38 AM