Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Oct 21, 2012.
The Salt Lake City Tribune endorses Obama. Will wonders never cease?
The rest of the (so called) mainstream media is liberal so why should this surprise anyone?
There are as many lies about Obama's accomplishments as there about Romney's supposed ambivalence. The endorsement of Obama reflects poorly on the newspaper and on Obama.
One must wonder how Crabby finds time to search all the leftist websites, but <PA deleted - LE>-well that speaks volumes!
You ought to take back your last paragraph.
I am absolutely opposed to his leftist stands both politically and Biblically, but CTB is not vacationing in the Czech Republic. He is serving in a Baptist seminary there. Anyway, the Czech Republic is a beautiful place and even if he was vacatioing there, what would be wrong with that?
If the paper would have endorsed Romney, it would be claimed that it was only because he's a Mormon.
I always get riled up when a supposedly impartial media outlet endorses a candidate, even one I support. How exactly can we trust you, Mr. Newspaper Man, to report impartially if you are endorsing one of the candidates? It happens from the Presidential election all the way down to the local level. Pathetic.
I always found that to be pretty crazy too. After they do that, it's pretty much just a rag as far as reporting the news.
Are you really surprised at that response???
Keep in mind that the board who does the endorsing is NOT the news dept- it is the EDITORIAL BOARD - thus it is on the editorial page.
granted - some newsman may be bias - but EDITORIALS are expected to be bias.
From the quote in Crabbys post
The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.
Why in carnation does the State of Utah need fed funds to plug holes? I need to plug a few holes - why cant I get a stimulus - rather - I send money to Uncle Sam.
so that one statement from Crabbys post is an excellent reason to vote for Romney
The primary reason given by the largest newspaper in Utah for endorsing Obama is that no one knows which Mitt will be elected. No one know what he will do if elected. Will he revert to being:
support Obamacare or something like it that he passed in Massachutes
Pick your topic and you will find that Mitt has taken several stances, often contradicting himself.
So you do not know who you are voting for or what he will do if elected. He may turn out to be more liberal than Obama. You just do not know.
No doubt the citizens of Utah will be highly swayed by what a newspaper thinks. I can just here it now, "it is now 10 pm eastern time, and CNN projects Barack Obama has won Utah's electoral votes."
I'd say picking Paul Ryan to run as veep is a good indication that this will probably not be the case.
Arbo, good comeback. Now, if he had picked our RINO senator Mitch McConnell for VP, then I would say CTB had a point.
You may be right. If Romney is elected we will certainly find out.
That being said, I would not lay a great deal of faith in the pick of a particular person to be the Vice President. I believe they are usually that politics drive the selection more than political philosophy. Romney, I believe, selected Ryan because he was from a swing state. If he had not selected Ryan I believe he would have picked someone from Ohio. I am not criticizing Romney but looking at his selection in what I believe is a realistic way.
An example: FDR selected Truman to be his VP in his last term not because he agreed or even liked Truman. He didn't. Truman was not FDR's choice to replace Wallace. He proposed that James F. Byrnes replace Wallace on the ticket. However FDR bowed to party leaders who pushed Truman. There are differing reasons given from various writers on this and on FDR's words when he agreed to Truman.
Likewise I believe if we look at the selection of VP candidates we will find their selection was more for political than philosophical reasons.
What do you think motivated Richard Nixon to pick Spiro Agnew, or Reagan to pick Bush? Do you remember at the Republican Convention in 1980, when there was almost a deal for Reagan to pick Gerald Ford for VP, a former President? It fell through for some reason. It seems like there was a question about Ford suceeding to the Presidency if something happened to Reagan, but not sure.
From what I have read and having lived in Maryland I have no idea why Nixon tabbed Agnew. I am not sure anyone has a line on solving that mystery.
It seems Reagan selected Bush at the last moment after a lot of back room maneuvering had gone one. I am not sure of what deals, if any, were cut in the back room.
Likewise, I have no idea why G. Bush [the first] tabbed Dan Quayle. Again, I am not sure anyone understands that one.
Tabbing Geraldine Ferraro was an obvious play in attempting to swing women to vote for him, Modale.
McCain tabbed Palin, I believe, primarily to attract women.
Carter and Kennedy were balancing regional politics.
Eisenhower did not like Nixon, but needed to shore up a conservative image and perhaps swing CA his way.
I am not sure why Clinton selected Gore. It did not balance the ticket regionally and, as far as I know, did nothing to help philosophically.
To me it was a bit surprising that Romney did not select Rob Portman and Marco Rubio to balance the ticket. But, as I said in an earlier post, Michigan is a swing state and that is why I believe he tabbed Ryan. It may also have been a play for more Catholic votes and to please the Tea Party. But I do not lend much credence it was for Ryan's conservative stances. I do not believe he would have given Ryan a second look if he had been from a state either solidly in his column, say Texas, or one in Obama's column, say California. I may be wrong, but that is my feeling at the moment.
Right. They loose their integrity!
Ryan, do you feel the same if a publication endorses a candidate you like?
Why is it that some people are so incapable of reading with comprehension?