Watch for the rest of the endorsement package Sunday

Finally, I'm wrapping up my day. It's been a long one, but I'm reasonably pleased.

Today, Warren and I completed the rest of the endorsement package -- my explanatory column, and his column dissenting from the McCain endorsement. I'm reasonably pleased with what I was able to do and still keep my column to a normal length, instead of my double-length pieces last week and the week before.

But I'm even more pleased with Warren's column, which gives readers a fuller picture of the range of opinions on the board. I'll post it on the blog Sunday along with my own.

Together, the four elements -- the endorsement editorial itself, my column about the process, Warren's dissent, and the discussions we've already had here on the blog and will continue to have -- present a fuller and more thought-provoking package than you will find in the endorsement of any newspaper in the country. I'm quite proud of it.

As I've said so many times before, the point of an endorsement is to help the reader think more deeply about his decision. Whether you agree with us in the end or not, my hope is always that your vote will be better thought-out, more fully contemplated and informed, because of having read the endorsement. In that regard, I believe this package, considered as a whole, accomplishes the goal far better than usual.

When you're done looking at all of this (and I hope you will), you'll have a much better idea of where we're coming from, and be better equipped to decide what you think in light of it, than, say, the confusing package put out by the Philly paper the other day, for instance. Not to cast aspersions (perish the thought).

Comments

[Mark G]

That would have made a nice endorsement for McCain eight years ago-- back when he made some sense. But in his run for president, I believe he sold out his values in order to get elected.

In the editorial, you didn't address McCain's colossal lack of judgment in selecting Palin for VP, and the nightmarish scenario of her ascending to the White house if anything were to happen. That alone should have been reason not to endorse him.

[john]

It's a real shocker that Warren is supporting Obama.

[Randy E]

Mark G, welcome to the club. Several of us have been howling about this.

Given the national polling about her, the crescendo of discontent among conservative writers, and the pure factual accounts like her repeated misinterpretation of the Constitution in terms of VP responsibilities we're all bewildered at his willful nescience.

[Nate P]

What do you expect? The State is a SOUTH CAROLINA newspaper. I can't even imagine the uproar which would occur had they endorsed Obama, people would probably boycott the paper. The endorsement will make conservatives happy. The fact is that when you live in a Republican stronghold like South Carolina, voting for a democratic presidential candidate is like throwing your ballot in the trashcan, that's how the great electoral college works. Personally, I would rather throw my ballot in the trash then vote for a McCain/Palin ticket, and there's always that 1% chance enough democrats turn out and the race is actually tight in SC.

This endorsement, while disappointing, is definitely not surprising.

[John]

Randy,
That was one heck of a sentence. Keep practicing the writing thing; it's bound to improve.

[pg]

With a twenty point lead in SC, I don't believe your paper's editorial endorsement of McCain will turn enough people against him to lose it. However, I am concerned about some of the down ballot races. Was this an intentional, but subtle, effort to cut into his lead and bring down other Republican candidates?

[bud]

I'm looking forward to Warren's rebutal to the State's one-issue endorsement. Too bad the State newspaper is so predictable. They certainly offer nothing in the way of insight other than this constant harping on why our expensive occupation of Iraq is a good thing. We get it already, the editorial board thinks this occupation thing is good. No need to keep on about it. Why would support of that issue be of any use in helping the voter?

[pam,greenwood]

John S. McCain , an unstable man for unstable times. He's not a maverick he's a weathervane.

[Brad Warthen]

bud, before you read the rest of the package Sunday, I suggest you go read the endorsement again, so you can get past that one-issue thing. It dealt with, or at least touched on, free trade, checks and balances, organized labor, immigration, campaign finance reform, and general ability to manage challenges across the globe. Quite a bit for an 11-inch piece.

I believe that on a previous post you complained that too much space was devoted to Colombian free trade -- or was that someone else? I don't see how you can turn around and say "one-issue" now. The Colombian issue bears upon which candidate can think past the mindless orthodoxies of his own party, free trade, our relationship with Venezuela, the war on drugs, and the Monroe Doctrine, plus some others I'm probably not thinking of at the moment.

On the judicial appointments, if I'd had space, I would have gotten more into something that really bothered me in that last debate -- Obama equating the inferred "right to privacy" with the expressed right to free speech (and the press, and religion) in the Constitution, and setting up the straw man of claiming McCain wants to have "referendums" on said "right." Wanting something to go back to the political branches -- where it belongs -- does not equate, in a republic, to wanting "referenda."

Another thing that has bothered me about Obama, but which I haven't heard him express overtly enough to include it in an editorial, is the strong implication (he exhibited it in the epilogue of his book dealing with his time in law school) and in the third debate -- that he judges court decisions on the POLICY outcomes, rather than whether the legal reasoning was sound. For someone who would lead a society governed by rule of law, that's disturbing.

For me, the multiple problems with Obama solely on judicial appointments would be enough to prefer McCain.

To show you the contrast, if you go back and look at the much-maligned 2004 endorsement of Bush, THAT one was about Iraq -- and of course what that implied about the conduct of war and peace and foreign affairs overall.

This endorsement was as different from that one as night and day.

[Lee Muller]

Obama was a member of the New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Party newspapers contain photos and speeches by Barack Obama at socialist conventions.

If Brad Warthen would let us post pictures, I would post the scans of the newspapers. Right now, I am working them up into a PDF file to put on a web site which will remain up and active until Barack Obama is driven from office, any office.

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

Since Brad's blog breaks my links, I am breaking them into multiple lines. If you restore them to one line, you can get to Obama's speeches and articles in the New Ground newsletter.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/
10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html

[Mark G]

I thought the poll you ran yesterday was fascinating. It showed that there's a "new South" emerging in NC and VA-- a South that is more independent in its thinking.

Conservative votes in NC and VA were wiling to acknowledge that Palin in not qualified to be president, and that McCain is really not a "maverick" any longer.

While in the "old South," which still exists in SC, the majority of voters loyally cling to that old-style conservatism, whether right or wrong.

I think this endorsement reflects the way The State is clinging to the "old South" way of thinking.

In states where there is a strong educational base, and a more diverse economy, there is a more progressive way of thinking in both parties. More open mindedness in general.

But the old confederacy still clings to its old ways of voting-- and newspapers often reflect their communities.

Luckily for our nation, the old South is less relevant to the presidential election than it has ever been.

[Lee Muller]

Military voters back McCain 3 to 1.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

[HP]

Nate P,

"The [McFruitcake] endorsement will make conservatives happy."

No it won't.

Real conservatives won't be happy for another four years -- no matter which one gets himself elected this year. HOWEVER, either one will be the perfect mess, and we'll offer up Ron Paul next time!

[Doug Ross]

If this was 1972, The State would endorse Richard Nixon and neglect to mention Watergate and Vietnam.

[Lee Muller]

Nixon won in a landslide because he ended the draft in 1972, just as he promised in 1968, to end the War in Vietnam begun by John F. Kennedy and escalated by Johnson, and grossly mismanaged by both of them.

[pg]

Brad, you have demonstrated an ability to analyze legal issues that shows me that you consider the arguments of various legal scholars your paper's liberal owners would never endorse. That being said, do you think there is a right of privacy in the U.S. constitution? Asked another way, do you believe there is a constitutional right of privacy in our land? If so, what does that mean, and who may or may not be protected by it?

[Lee Muller]

There is an inherent right to privacy recognized in the Fourth Amendment, which requires due process of law to obtain a warrant for a reasonable search of a person, his dwellings, any other places he may be, and his papers.

[pg]

Lee, I'm not sure the framers identified a thing called the right to privacy, and I think Brad has a pretty good perspective on the question. But before I start a campaign to name him our next Supreme Court justice, I'd like to hear his comment.

And Lee, what do you think about all the other things our activist courts have called a "right to privacy" that did not involve warrantless searches as clearly proscribed by the Fourth Amendment?

[Lee Muller]

Those other rights to privacy were CREATED by the courts, and were flimsy excuses for the activities they were trying to suddenly make legal by legislating from the bench.

[Wayne]

McCain meets the approval of The State?

My, oh, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same in my home state. Good luck "The State". Turn a blind eye to McCain's significant character flaws (wife cheating, scandals, temperment and intellectual curiosity, etc.). Turn a blind eye to his blatant lies, distortions, negativity and selection of the amusing Sarah Palin for VP.

McCain is a poor choice to endorse. You have not learned from your previous endorsement of the worst leader in modern American history. *sigh*

South Carolina, unfortunately, continues turning to the same old party with the same old failed solutions in hopes that they will now solve new problems. One reason we lag behind other other states academically and economically is our tendancy to disregard "lessons learned". As I said earlier, the more things change, the more they stay the same. *chuckle* (note: disregard spelling/grammar errors...I'm in a rush and this PC does not have spell check)

[pg]

Lee, I have to confess that Brad may have an understanding of this issue that is in accord with the vast majority of his readership. If that is the case, I must retract my previous anonymous posts suggesting that he is a long lost liberal. In fact, on the most critical issue involving the election of our next president - and that is the nomination of our next Supreme Court justices - I must now (with egg on my anonymous face) confess that Brad has the correct position. Sorry, Brad.

[Must Say It]

RE: "Scoop pup’s poop on dam’s walkway" [Ltrs to the editor 10/25/08].

READER THOUGHT:

How about leave the little crappers at home?

[Randy E]

The Hartford Courant gets it in their endorsement of Obama; "Most worrisome, however, is Mr. McCain's choice of a running mate, Sarah Palin, who is Not yet ready for prime time."

[Reader]

Do tell, Randy E. -- did you give a whit about this paper's earlier endorsement:

http://www.courant.com/topic/politics/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433.topic

Or are you picking and choosing? Do you actually LIVE in the South, Randy E.? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE if Brad would have stuck a rag in it [his unfettered ERA thoughts] and painted a favorable open-minded window of opportunity for another Democratic candidate? Like this one?

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/2012-starts-today-it-seems-rasmussen-polling-hillary-clinton-vs-sarah-palin-2012-matchup/

[the only logical caption for this photo would be, "I'd beat you and you know it..."]

..........

Or, do you just dislike strong women -- and Pastor Hagee?

:)

[Randy E]

Citing a Sept 23 article?

Hagee? what's to dislike? I don't let silly things like how he blamed gays in New Orleans for Katrina or how he believes me and my family are cult members.

As for the rest of your post, HUH?!