I don't know if this is worth discussing or not, but I thought it was interesting.
Yesterday, the Denver Post (a decidely left-leaning publication) came out with their official Presidential Endorsement: George W. Bush. -
LINK
There are two parts to this story that I wanted to point out.
1) If you read the story without reading the headline, you would be very confused as a good portion of the endorsement is a slam on Bush and sometimes very pro-Kerry. You can almost see the anger in the writers' faces as they are forced to write an endorsement of a candidate they don't like (I will get to that in Point 2). Here are some excerpts:
Quote:
Typically, in the case of an incumbent, our endorsement calculation would begin this way: Are we, as Coloradans, better off today than we were four years ago?
In a word, no. Since 2001, Colorado has lost more jobs than we've gained, and the ones we've gained pay less than the ones we've lost. We pay less in taxes, but our household and medical expenses have skyrocketed. Ninety thousand of us have lost our health coverage. Washington is ringing up record deficits and sticking the next generation with the bill. In Iraq, Colorado-based military units and reserves are deployed in a hostile environment for questionable purpose and uncertain result.
|
Quote:
|
It's no secret that we part company with the president over many issues. Two glaring sore spots are his obsession to cut taxes even while piling up record deficits, and his mishandling of all things Iraq. He squandered global good will by taking a "my way or the highway" approach to matters of global warming, international law, Iraq weapons inspections and ultimately the Iraq invasion. He bows to corporate preference in matters of energy and environment, and his education funding levels leave far too many children behind.
|
Quote:
|
Kerry has infused the 2004 campaign with energy and gumption, offering fresh ideas on health care and sensible plans for our tax structure. His are the superior proposals on environmental protection, on stem-cell research and judicial nominations.
|
I guess it is a rather fair endorsement. It doesn't pander and it doesn't hold any punches (from Kerry or Bush).
Here is where it gets interesting, in my opinion
2) There is a "rumor" floating around Denver that is supposed to come from a very reliable source in the Denver Post. I cannot verify any of this, but I think it is interesting nonetheless:
The story goes that the Post was ready to endorse Kerry for President (which is the norm for them, the Post overwhelmingly supports Democrats over Republicans). However, Kerry is alleged to have lost the endorsement over a personal encounter with one of the editors (the guy who would decide who the Post endorses). I don't think the details of the meeting are worth repeating, it just seems that John Kerry reversed his course a little too much for the editor (apparently on issues important to this particular editor) in a one-on-one sit down with the editor. The editor didn't like the change of opinion (note: the editorial mentions as much) and the endorsement went to President Bush.
Is it true? I don't know. But judging from the tone of the endorsement, it doesn't sound like the staff was all to happy with the job that they were given (the editorial staff doesn't make the decision as to who the newspaper decides to endorse)
Like I said, I'm not sure how worthy of discussion this is, but I found it interesting. However, I first had to get over my shock that the Denver Post endorsed President Bush. I was not ready for that one.