The NY Times endorsed Obama ? What a shocker. This is almost as unexpected as the old headline proclaiming 'John Wilkes Booth Hates Abraham Lincoln'. Sure didn't see that coming. The Times released this non-bombshell on it's internet site. Here's the Times' reasoning, according to Yahoo:
"He [Obama] has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."
The part about Obama bringing in "legions of new voters" is certainly correct, but what was that stuff about Obama calling for "shared sacrifice and social responsibility" ???
Obama wants the "rich' to pay for universal health care, nationalized pre-school, and all the rest of his trillion dollars in new "investments." At the same time, he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, about half of whom don't even pay income taxes, and he wants the "rich", who already pay the lion's share of income taxes, to pick up the slack. I'm missing the "shared sacrifice" in all that, unless Obama's using "shared sacrifice" as a metaphor for The Next Great Depression that his million new taxing and spending policies will bring about. As for the "social responsibility" part, Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has never voted against any abortion control measure, including partial-birth abortions and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would provide medical care for live babies who have survivied abortion. Obama takes his pro-abortion radicalism to such an extent that he would allow live born babies to die rather than help them. In other times, that would be called infanticide, but not in Obama and the Times' view of "social responsibility." The old Nazi Dr. Mengele had a similar view of social responsibility.
The NY Times declared that the choice between Obama and Republican John McCain was easy. Not even close. They said:
"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."
What is the Times talking about here ? McCain doesn't want to raise taxes, he wants to decrease federal spending, and balance the budget. If those things are the "limitless demands and narrow vison of the far right, then our entire country is in big, big trouble. Or maybe it's all those calls by McCain for bipartisanship and working across the aisle to get things done that so irritates the NY Times. I don't know. Also, when the Times chooses McCain as the "best Republican nominee in the primaries", that tells you McCain was NOT the best Republican nominee, just the one furthest to the left in the Times' view.
But then again, who cares what the NY Times thinks ? I wonder who was the last Republican they endorsed for president ? I wonder if there has ever been one.
American newspapers are endorsing Obama over McCain at about a 3-1 rate. The only thing that surprises me there is that the numbers don't favor Obama even more. After all, Obama has no military experience, no management experience, no executive experience, no economic qualifications, little U.S. Senate experience, and next to no significant legislative accomplishments during his political career. He is the champion of the noncommital "present" vote. He has never run so much as a Dunkin' Donuts shop. He has associations with several shady and far left characters. His positions change like the wind (he even changed his tax policy this week in response to McCain's onslaught), but he gives a good speech, carefully crafted by his 300 advisors. He also says "hope" and "change" a lot. What's not to like ? Barack Obama, America's first entry-level president.
By choosing Obama over McCain, America will be choosing style over substance, again. And then we wonder why things don't work out so well.
For an alternative and far superior viewpoint to the NY Times, read Charles Krauthammer's column about who should be the next president.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Your kidding right ? McCain can't balance a budget on what he plans to do ?
Even if he was to STOP all earmarks that hardly makes a dent. The Bush White House says earmarks this year total $17 billion, a comparatively small share of a $2.9 trillion plus budget . And Mcsame said he would not cut defense in fact INCREASE IT . So what is left ..to make cuts in things like elementary and secondary education, veterans' health benefits and highway construction? You spend money on bridges and alternative energy projects and you now have given American JOBS . Tell each parent that their kids education will suffer and each VET will not have benefits.
When you are in a war and when you are helping to get the economy back on track with bail outs this isnt the time for tax cuts. Sorry if you were in a country club that was falling apart you have to pay your dues. You won't go and make membership free. The rich have more money so they pay more ..only fair. What do you want the middle class to no longer have homes and to live on the street? Someone has to pay for the war which by the way was Mccains great idea too. So was deregulation another Mccains idea.
Here's some facts for ya, estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost more than $700 billion in the next five years.
And McSame plans to also cut the corporate income tax rate and plans to give everyone 5k for health care whether they make a billion dollars or 10k .
You end the war and that frees up a whole lot of money . You don't give tax cuts to the wealthy and you got more money to spend. Simple math . Obama is much more likely to balance the budget before Mccain.
We have tried the trickle down voodoo economics and they didn't work.
YOU give the big CEOs who many got us into this financial mess another tax cut . They have the money to lose when the country is hurting , maybe its about time they start living like the rest of us.
Mccain current economic plan would create a huge deficit nothing more..
Oh and by the way Obama /Biden have one big important thing Mccain /Palin do not have even if you put both brains together ..that is SMARTS
just check their education and decisions and how they ran their campaigns.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9595
Darn it, King, I came along thinking to comment on the New York Obama Times since that was the topic of your blog entry but find I can't really comment since Andrea has done the normal left handed job of trying to make Bush and McCain look like the same man along with the normal lefthanded campaign drivel about something other than her favorite newspaper.
I will say that I agree with you about the New York Obama Times completely. I wonder why they waited so long to give what they have given for years without the actual comment.
Normally I wouldn't be so disappointed by one of your posts….but you do the same thing in this post that the despicable extremists have been doing. Suggesting, wrongly, that Obama wants to kill babies.
Surely, you know better.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was, as Obama has explained in detail, a gotcha kind of bill set out to be a trap for Democrats. The facts state that laws already existed to protect babies in these situations. I would think that you already knew that…maybe you do. That makes it even worse.
"He has never run so much as a Dunkin' Donuts shop."
For a guy who couldn't run a donut shop….he sure as hell has run a tremendously successful campaign for president.
wow. this news is surprsing. whats next, the WaPo endorsement? Oh, wait..
King
Forget the New York Times. That leftwing rag is dying. The day the Times endorsed B. Hussein Obama, the rag got a junk status from S&P rating serive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g
I love it; soon the rag will be gone.
Now to more important issues:
Check out this video. You'll love it, coming as you do from the banking industry. It's a comedy sketch by two English comics on the sub-prime mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g
Nice, huh?
Why don't you just come out and say it, King? The real reason. The one that has pictures of fried chicken on food stamps, has people carving a "B" in other people's faces (who knew it was a hoax!), and has the best candidate being called "a black Adolf Hitler?" Oh, wait. There is no racism in this race, right?
Who cares who the Times endorses? Apparently you do, thus we have to read this drivel from you. I couldn't care less; but the Rs sure seem to be closely watching the endorsements slip away.
As this historic election in our nation's history unfolds, I am reminded of Crispus Attucks. Our country is about to come full circle. President Obama's time in office won't heal the racial divide this country suffers from; but it's a real fine place to start….it's time we learned, this world was made for all men.
Good one da truth. Anyone who doesn't go along is racist.
Larry, anyone who doesn't want to talk about the issues and who calls names is a racist. You and da king can can vote for whoever you want. But saying that John McCain is honest and Barack Obama is a liar is not true. Your candidate is one you all despised about 6 months ago and now you hold him up as a beacon of light. King accepts everything McCain says as fact but doesn't do the same for Obama? Calling Obama a "pro-abortion extremist?" is not only false it's dangerous. Not to mention all the silly names over the last few months you all have called Obama and his counterparts (I guess "magic Negro" isn't racist) And King's defense? John McCain will fight a war. Please.
It's over, Larry. All the petty crap, all the hate and fear, all the my way or the highway bs your party has spewn for decades now…..it's over. We woke up.
The current incarnation of the Republican party is not what Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Reagan had in mind. I hope, after the slaughter you are about to experience on election day, you people can get back to the principles those two tried to instill in you.
da truth,
Still obsessed with phony racism, eh ? I guess you haven't figured it out yet, but throwing out false allegations of racism is a planned tactic the Democrats and the Obama campaign are using to deflect criticism of Obama. It's one of the Dem versions of the hate and fear tactics y'all are always complaining that the GOP uses. Funny how you can't see the tactic when it comes from your side, even when you are engaging in the tactic yourself, as you just did.
I read a few days ago that more white males are voting for Obama than for any Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. I'm wondering how that squares with your theory of massive racism being a factor in the election, not to mention how Obama could possibly be leading in all the polls if it were true.
Contrary to what you are implying, I would never vote either for or against a presidential candidate because of his race. I wonder how I voted for Ken Blackwell for governor of Ohio in 2004 if I'm such a big racist. I guess I forgot to check his photo first.
And da truth, since when have I "accept[ed] everything McCain says as the truth" ??
You've been reading my blog long enough to know better than to say something like that.
Obama's voting record IS "pro-abortion extremist."
I fail to see what's "dangerous" about citing the facts.
Oh yeah, I forgot, citing the facts about Obama is racist.
Gimme a break.
Rev,
I wouldn't say Obama "wants" to kill babies, I'd just say he was/is lost in such a leftwing fog of political correctness that he didn't realize he DID vote to kill babies by voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I guess he should have voted "present" on that one too.
And that bilge about the law already being on the books is laughable on it's face. Obama's original comment was that he thought Born Alive would impinge on Roe v Wade, which is unbelievably wrongheaded thinking.
Vince,
That British comedy duo was on the money (no pun intended). Very funny, and the subprime crisis really did result from actions about as irresponsible as what those comedians described.
da Truth, I am a damnable racist. I say that because I will not vote for Barack the Wealth Spreader and will tell anything I hear about him as complete truth. Obviously I am a racist because I don't like the man. Maybe I should say that I don't trust the man.
If thinking that Obama, a relative unkown on the national stage four years ago, is not fit to be POTUS is racist, I sure am one. There are all kinds of black people in this country that I would gladly vote for this year, but Obama just isn't one of them. Why is it racist to vote against a man who one doesn't want or trust. Would it not be racist to vote against McCain using the same reasoning you use? I guess since you want to vote for a black man against a white man you are certainly just as racist as I am. Whoops, I forgot that all racism is white against black and can't go the other way. In your definition maybe, but not mine.