About This Blog
The NY Times endorsed Obama ? What a shocker. This is almost as unexpected as the old headline proclaiming 'John Wilkes Booth Hates Abraham Lincoln'. Sure didn't see that coming. The Times released this non-bombshell on it's internet site. Here's the Times' reasoning, according to Yahoo:
"He [Obama] has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."
The part about Obama bringing in "legions of new voters" is certainly correct, but what was that stuff about Obama calling for "shared sacrifice and social responsibility" ???
Obama wants the "rich' to pay for universal health care, nationalized pre-school, and all the rest of his trillion dollars in new "investments." At the same time, he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, about half of whom don't even pay income taxes, and he wants the "rich", who already pay the lion's share of income taxes, to pick up the slack. I'm missing the "shared sacrifice" in all that, unless Obama's using "shared sacrifice" as a metaphor for The Next Great Depression that his million new taxing and spending policies will bring about. As for the "social responsibility" part, Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has never voted against any abortion control measure, including partial-birth abortions and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would provide medical care for live babies who have survivied abortion. Obama takes his pro-abortion radicalism to such an extent that he would allow live born babies to die rather than help them. In other times, that would be called infanticide, but not in Obama and the Times' view of "social responsibility." The old Nazi Dr. Mengele had a similar view of social responsibility.
The NY Times declared that the choice between Obama and Republican John McCain was easy. Not even close. They said:
"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."
What is the Times talking about here ? McCain doesn't want to raise taxes, he wants to decrease federal spending, and balance the budget. If those things are the "limitless demands and narrow vison of the far right, then our entire country is in big, big trouble. Or maybe it's all those calls by McCain for bipartisanship and working across the aisle to get things done that so irritates the NY Times. I don't know. Also, when the Times chooses McCain as the "best Republican nominee in the primaries", that tells you McCain was NOT the best Republican nominee, just the one furthest to the left in the Times' view.
But then again, who cares what the NY Times thinks ? I wonder who was the last Republican they endorsed for president ? I wonder if there has ever been one.
American newspapers are endorsing Obama over McCain at about a 3-1 rate. The only thing that surprises me there is that the numbers don't favor Obama even more. After all, Obama has no military experience, no management experience, no executive experience, no economic qualifications, little U.S. Senate experience, and next to no significant legislative accomplishments during his political career. He is the champion of the noncommital "present" vote. He has never run so much as a Dunkin' Donuts shop. He has associations with several shady and far left characters. His positions change like the wind (he even changed his tax policy this week in response to McCain's onslaught), but he gives a good speech, carefully crafted by his 300 advisors. He also says "hope" and "change" a lot. What's not to like ? Barack Obama, America's first entry-level president.
By choosing Obama over McCain, America will be choosing style over substance, again. And then we wonder why things don't work out so well.
For an alternative and far superior viewpoint to the NY Times, read Charles Krauthammer's column about who should be the next president.