It's often been joked that one has to be a card-carrying member of the GOP to also be a member of the Mormon Church and/or to reside in Utah. That's definitely not true, especially in the former case -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada is a Latter Day Saint. The Dems also have a small but still vibrant Democratic party wing. But Utah is at least 3/4 Mormon, and many outside the state as well as non-Mormons within it still accuse the state of being a Republican theocracy in everything but name. And the GOP has had a stranglehold hold on state politics since -- well, other than the mayoralty of Salt Lake City no one can ever remember a Democrat holding a significant statewise or local office.
So what a huge shock it must be -- to see the Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama?!
While they mostly support Obama on his professional and political merits, they said what tipped it over for them was John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin -- perhaps the most naïve state-level figure to ever emerge on the national scene. Many more women are clued into the domestic and foreign political scenes than she, the paper noted -- and they also cited her questionable ethics in "Troopergate." This lack of judgment, said the paper, disqualifies McCain at a time when the country needs steady but prudent leadership the most. The paper made it clear McCain should have gone with Mitt Romney who has executive experience in a liberal state (Massachusetts). Precisely what many of us pundits have also been saying.
Keep in mind, Obama has virtually no chance of winning Utah. Polls in the state show him behind McCain by 36 percentage points. This is more of a moral endorsement than a practical one but Obama should run with it for what it's worth.
Also offering a surprising endorsement for Obama was the Denver Post. It wasn't unanimous as Chuck Plunkett made a point of writing a dissent (saying he would have joined if the Dems' candidate had been Hillary Clinton). However the majority of the board at the paper notes that while Obama leaves a lot to be desired, his community service gives him grass-roots experience; something lacking in Washington. They also say a major consideration for their endorsement is McCain's health care proposals which would make employee medical benefits taxable.
For the average person in Colorado that would raise income taxes by about $3000 per year at a time when a tax increase of that magnitude is the last thing people need. With America so heavily in debt (more than double per capita than here in Canada) and that does not include the unfunded liabilities in Social Security and unemployment benefits (unlike Canada which has surpluses in both) a tax increase is probably inevitable; but a "temporary refund adjustment" like that -- ugh! In a time of crisis, they conclude America needs a pragmatic approach and not an idealistic one and that's Obama.
Also offering Obama endorsements today are the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Kansas City Star (also with one dissent, E. Thomas McClanahan) and the Chicago Sun-Times -- generally all favourable to Democrats but very critical of their past top of ticket choices.
Again, newspaper endorsements don't necessarily influence voters. But if usually Republican or even pro-business Democratic papers are rallying behind "Barry" Obama then that must mean the papers know a revolution is coming and they want to prepare their readers for it. To be blunt, however, many of the papers who supported Bush four years ago must be having some remorse as well while the rest who supported John Kerry are basically saying, "We told you so."
There is a place for endorsements of course. But there's no need to rub it in -- especially in times like these.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
No comments:
Post a Comment