The Chicago Tribune Endorses Barack Obama
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama for President today. Here are what is probably the two most key arguments in their endorsement piece:
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office — and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
and
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Now, some unfamilar with the editorial board of the Tribune are probably thinking, “that liberal rag.” You might be surprised to hear that this is the first time they’ve endorsed a Democrat for president in their entire history. The whole history after the jump.
(H/T Elrod @ TMV)
2008: Obama
2004: Bush
2000: Bush
1996: Dole
1992: Bush
1988: Bush
1984: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1976: Ford
1972: Nixon
1968: Nixon
1964: Goldwater
1960: Nixon
1956: Eisenhower
1952: Eisenhower (though Col. McCormick wanted Gen. MacArthur more)
1948: Dewey
1944: Dewey
1940: Willkie
1936: Landon
1932: Hoover
1928: Hoover
1924: Coolidge
1920: Harding
1916: Hughes
1912: Roosevelt (as a Progressive Party candidate, though a former Republican)
1908: Taft
1904: Roosevelt
1900: McKinley
1896: McKinley
1892: Harrison
1888: Harrison
1884: Blaine
1880: Garfield
1876: Hayes
1872: Greeley (a Liberal Republican co-nominated by the Democrats; Greeley was a founder of the Republican Party in the 1850s and briefly broke with the party over corruption in the Grant Administration)
1868: Grant
1864: Lincoln
1860: Lincoln
1856: Fremont
The Tribune has previously passed over two other Illinois Democratic presidential candidates, Adlai Stevenson and Stephen Douglas, in favor of their Republican opponent.
I’m sure that at least publicly McCain probably doesn’t care what an editorial says. But one has to wonder what’s the thinking inside the campaign is when a historically solid Republican-leaning newspaper switches sides.
Michael: I understand their reasoning with the GOP having ‘lost its way’ but there’s one minor problem… it’s called one-party government. That’s what will happen if Obama wins. And history has taught us that when that happens, it’s not good for anyone except pure partisans.
One party rule worked for the Republicans and Bush proir to 2006, let Obama and the Dems get their shot. The Trib says:
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
Is the Trib saying Obama is the anti-W and anti-McCain?
Michael, you know I’m against unified government. On the other hand, the Republicans need to get their act together, and decide who they are economically. Are they small or big government conservatives? I don’t know if there’s room for both in the party. The Democrats seem to have down who they are in that area (and sometimes it’s a little scary).
I’m not a psychic, but I think we could eventually see a 1994-style revolt, with hopefully a Republican party who knows what they stand for back in power.
Michael, you know I’m against unified government. On the other hand, the Republicans need to get their act together, and decide who they are economically. Are they small or big government conservatives? I don’t know if there’s room for both in the party. The Democrats seem to have down who they are in that area (and sometimes it’s a little scary).
I’m not a psychic, but I think we could eventually see a 1994-style revolt, with hopefully a Republican party who knows what they stand for back in power.
I think that could likely happen, yeah.
As for Am. Cons: I think we see that battle taking place right now on cons. blogs, in cons. news outlets, magazines, talk radio, and so on.
They should have had this debate 2 years ago, when people like me but also Pete Abel of TMV warned them.
They should have had this debate 2 years ago, when people like me but also Pete Abel of TMV warned them.
It would have been wise, but they just didn’t learn their lessons. Consider early in the Republican primaries. You had three distinct factions: the war hawks, the religious conservatives, and economic conservatives, with some overlap. They eventually coalesced around McCain (some reluctantly), but the problem was beyond obvious then.