Endorsement: Kerry for President

October 24, 2004 12:23 PM

Endorsement: Kerry for President Ok. The NY Times endorsed Kerry. And now the Washington Post. But now the Orlando-Sentinel, a paper that has not endorsed a Demcorat in the past 40 years! "Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound. This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush. Our choice was not dictated by partisanship. Already this election season, the Sentinel has endorsed Republican Mel Martinez for the U.S. Senate and four U.S. House Republicans. In 2002, we backed Republican Gov. Jeb Bush for re-election, repeating our endorsement of four years earlier. Indeed, it has been 40 years since the Sentinel endorsed a Democrat -- Lyndon Johnson -- for president...."
posted by Postroad (33 comments total)

For people interested in tracking endorsements, Editor & Publisher keeps a good endorsement tally.
posted by gluechunk at 12:28 PM on October 24, 2004

what's a Demcorat?
posted by matteo at 12:30 PM on October 24, 2004

For its reasoned analysis it's worth to offer the Washington Post's endorsement.
posted by semmi at 12:34 PM on October 24, 2004

what's a Demcorat?

Well, it's neither a facsist nor a commnuist.
posted by semmi at 12:43 PM on October 24, 2004

Why does this paper feel the need to so strenuously qualify its endorsement as nonpartisan?

They didn't do so with all their endorsements of Republicans.

Must be the "damn liberal media" blowback that is imminent with any endorsement that isn't Republican. Troll repellant for newspapers.
posted by nofundy at 1:20 PM on October 24, 2004

Some other surprises:
- Jessie Ventura
- Chafetz
- Robert George of New Republic "Why I can't vote for George Bush"

- The New Republic's endorsement
posted by xammerboy at 1:22 PM on October 24, 2004

I learned of two interesting endorsements last night:

My step-mother. A lifelong registered Republican. Never voted Democrat before. She's voting for Kerry because "Bush is just so useless".

My wife's little sister. Mid-20s, never voted before. She's voting for Kerry because she "saw a bit of the first debate and can't believe a President could be that stupid looking".

Personally, I found both these independent conclusions interesting.
posted by meehawl at 2:02 PM on October 24, 2004

For anyone who gives a flying crap:

List of Kerry endorsements

List of Bush endorsements

Perhaps this will save us from enduring an FPP each time there's a new one. Or not.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:11 PM on October 24, 2004

Scott McConnell in Pat Buchanan's American Conservative endorses Kerry (the magazine's editors are split):

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations.

According to Editor & Publisher's tally, 31 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have endorsed Kerry, at least 3 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are not endorsing anyone, this time, and 2 papers that endorsed Gore in 2000 have endorsed Bush. All of the major newspapers in Florida have endorsed Kerry.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:15 PM on October 24, 2004

A non-endorsement.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:16 PM on October 24, 2004

hooray for my old paper (um and employer!)
posted by c at 2:44 PM on October 24, 2004

Speaking of the "liberal media," this is from the Editor & Publisher's piece I linked to above:

"Meanwhile, E&P has learned from several sources at the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the paper's nine-person editorial board decided earlier this week that it wanted to endorse Kerry but Publisher Alex Machaskee, who has final say, has decided on Bush. The paper backed Bush in 2000.

This has caused consternation in some quarters at the Plain Dealer, with sources telling E&P that the endorsement editorial, which was expected to run Sunday, was put off."

posted by gluechunk at 2:51 PM on October 24, 2004

In gluechunk's link it states that 33 papers which supported Bush in 2000 now support Kerry, while only 2 have switched the other way [from supporting Gore].

The two papers [Denver Post & York Daily Record] that have switched to Bush's side have a combined circulation of 332,000. While just one [The Oregonian with a circulation of 342,000] of the 22 papers that have switched to Kerry eclipses that gain. A couple of others that have switched: Chicago Sun-Times [around 450,000], The Seattle Times [237,000] and Los Angeles Daily News [177,000].

Would take me to long to work out the combined circulations of the papers supporting the candidates - but if anyone has time....
posted by meech at 4:46 PM on October 24, 2004

The combined circulations (14.9 million for Kerry, 8.9 million for Bush) are in the E&P link in gluechunk's first comment. Also keeping track is Explog.com.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 5:03 PM on October 24, 2004

from another thread:

the american conservative magazine endorses kerry as well.

and frontline drops the dime on rummy this tuesday night.

bye bye george.
posted by specialk420 at 5:12 PM on October 24, 2004

This would be really important if newspapers voted
posted by Mick at 5:28 PM on October 24, 2004

That comment was a bit premature. It has been brought to my attention that several papers registered ths year in Ohio, although their voter registration cards were returned.
posted by Mick at 5:29 PM on October 24, 2004

Good one Mick, good thing their party affiliation wasn't Democrat, or their voter registration cards would have been thrown away. (see how much fun non sequiturs are?)
posted by plemeljr at 5:34 PM on October 24, 2004

An endorsement is post worth? Best of the web? Pitiful.

She's voting for Kerry because she "saw a bit of the first debate and can't believe a President could be that stupid looking".

That's not interesting. It just shows how scary it is that some people get to vote.
posted by justgary at 6:34 PM on October 24, 2004

No, no, the newspaper voted, but the indelible ink smeared.

A Demcorat is not a mebmer of any ograzined praty.


Republican Switchers and the ShrillBlog are keeping track of this sort of thing, too.

For my money, the defections of lifelong conservatives has been one of the most striking things about this election season. I hope it reflects an electorate that the polls aren't detecting. But you know -- fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again.

As for my hometown paper, in 2000 they panned Gore for his "troubling" relationship with the truth -- this based on his "exaggerations" and the 8-year-old Buddhist Temple scandal. This year, they forcefully urged us to re-elect Bush, even though they began the editorial with "President Bush has made mistakes." Boy howdy.

justgary, rather, doesn't it show how scary it is that some people get to be President?
posted by dhartung at 6:39 PM on October 24, 2004

For my money, the defections of lifelong conservatives has been one of the most striking things about this election season.

You can find that on both sides, including several very well known long standing dems going right.

justgary, rather, doesn't it show how scary it is that some people get to be President?

No, it shows how some people get to be president.
posted by justgary at 10:31 PM on October 24, 2004

Justgary:
That's not interesting. It just shows how scary it is that some people get to vote.
I think she's got a pretty good fucking point.
posted by notsnot at 11:13 PM on October 24, 2004

from the Detroit News non-endorsement: “But all Michigan voters need to know about John Kerry is that he is no friend of the domestic auto industry. . . In January, he told the Associated Press that he supports a 50 percent increase in Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards over 10 years.”

Oh my god. The man's a dangerous lunatic. Clearly out of control.
posted by LeLiLo at 1:11 AM on October 25, 2004

You can find that on both sides, including several very well known long standing dems going right.

I hadn't heard about that.

Which "very well known long standing dems" other than Zell Miller (who is a very interesting case) have endorsed Bush?

(So far, via a barely more than cursory Google search, I've found former NY mayor Ed Koch, St. Paul (MN) mayor Randy Kelly, Youngstown (OH) mayor George McKelvey, and some state Senator in Washington state. None but Koch remotely qualify as "very well known," in my opinion.)
posted by gohlkus at 3:25 AM on October 25, 2004

yeah the tampa tribune can't endorse bush, but won't endorse kerry either... altho their reasoning is pretty weak, imo! but it's more interesting for why they're not backing bush :D and like i guess in a way it sorta makes it more convincing that they can't get behind kerry?
posted by kliuless at 4:55 AM on October 25, 2004

The New Yorker has endorsed Kerry. Apparently it's the first time they've ever endorsed a presidential candidate.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:57 AM on October 25, 2004

can't endorse bush, but won't endorse kerry either..

Sounds like that GOP electoral voter in West Virginia who might not vote for Bush.

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said based on his research, an elector has "qualified discretion" when it comes to casting a vote.

"There is an implied duty to vote for your party's candidate. But I don't think it's an explicit duty or responsibility," said Robb, a moderate Republican who has a reputation of being a maverick in the state party.

Still, Robb calls it "highly unlikely" that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry. He said he might cast his vote for Vice President Dick Cheney or another Republican instead as a protest against Bush, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.


posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:13 AM on October 25, 2004

In January, he told the Associated Press that he supports a 50 percent increase in Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards over 10 years.”

That bastard! He wants to reduce the USA's dependence on Saudi oil!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:30 AM on October 25, 2004

You can find that on both sides, including several very well known long standing dems going right.

We're not talking democrats/republicans, we're talking liberals/conservatives. There's a huge difference: take care not to confuse the two in the future.

It's funny... fiscally, Kerry seems to be at once more liberal and more conservative than Bush. The only explanation I can think of is that nobody had thought of corporate welfare when they made the distinction.
posted by Eamon at 9:55 AM on October 25, 2004

Interesting piece from Boston Globe's ombudsman on the process (which i think is similar at most papers)
posted by amberglow at 10:16 AM on October 25, 2004

The Financial Times (!) goes for Kerry too (but tepidly)
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on October 25, 2004

A follow-up to the Plain Dealer story:

Cleveland newspaper won't endorse a candidate for president

Link to the paper's non-endorsement here.
posted by Otis at 7:11 AM on October 26, 2004

The Economist has also endorsed Kerry, "with a heavy heart."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:48 PM on October 28, 2004