Conservative Seattle Times Endorses Obama

[rapunzel]

In a piece that articulates my reasoning more succinctly than I've ever been able to do myself, the Seattle Times this morning released it's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for President. The Times, with an editorial board that leans to the right, explains why moderates and fiscal conservatives (not the Rand/Milton spouting extremists, but people who believe in a very gently regulated free market) will vote for Obama this November.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008190671_obamaed21.html

Obama should be the next president of the United States because he is the most qualified change agent. Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

This time, I want a smart President.

Consider the banking and financial morass. Neither Obama nor his opponent, Sen. John McCain, offers a perfect solution. But McCain is all over the map, veering from statements such as "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" to the more obvious "Wall Street is threatened by greed."

McCain is at heart a deregulator. But it is the hands-off and ineffective federal regulatory system that allowed this mess to fester. Obama offered a more coherent approach months ago when he called for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds and streamlining overlapping regulatory agencies.

It was the Obama health plan that originally drew my attention, because he recognized that deregulation and consolidation was having the opposite effect from what Reaganomics had promised -- prices went up, choice went down, and services declined as the companies became more powerful than the commissioners charged with regulating them. He got that, and he got it in 2006 -- rather than last Tuesday. This time, I want a President with foresight.

Our country is on the wrong track. Average, middle-class citizens have lost confidence that if they work hard, they can improve their lives, afford to send their kids to college and not be tossed out of their homes.

American optimism has been wracked by President George Bush and a previous Republican Congress. If you want change, you do not keep what is essentially the same team in power. You try something different. You vote for the stronger matchup, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, a smart and steady hand on foreign policy and other matters.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This time, I want change we can believe in.

The Times concludes:

On numerous other issues, from media consolidation to health care, Obama has the stronger take. He makes up for a thin r?sum? with integrity, judgment and fresh ideas. Obama can get America moving forward again.

Exactly.

On another thread, someone spouted off the line of BS currently being pushed by the RNC that all the problems started with Democratic control of Congress in 2006. What an insulting line of crap -- it beggars belief that someone would try to blame problems that can be traced to the Reagan administration, 20 years in the making, on 18 months of Democrats who lack a ruling majority in Congress. It shows just how stupid the people at the RNC think Americans are, and frankly it's insulting.

It's time to try something different. It's time to stop demonizing one party and lionizing another. It's time to read, think, and believe in America again.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I remember the conservatives threatening the GOP by promising to vote for the Dem, to send a message to the GOP. Your post refreshed that thought, and I wonder why so many Reps have given in and are siding with McCain, whom they don't like. I never hear talk of that threat anymore.

 

[GoodWitch58]

I remember the conservatives threatening the GOP by promising to vote for the Dem, to send a message to the GOP. Your post refreshed that thought, and I wonder why so many Reps have given in and are siding with McCain, whom they don't like. I never hear talk of that threat anymore.

One reason: in a brillant move of "gutter politics" in the vein of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, Rick Davis and Co. plucked Sarah from the wilds of Alaska and tried to energize the base with she's "one of us" (read religion and anti-choice) to distract from any talk of the important issues.

Now that the energy is waning a bit; and they see the "real Sarah", many have come to their senses -- we'll have to see just how many people will vote R, regardless of the candidate and his stand on anything; and how many will vote for a woman, regardless of her qualifications--many are now seeing that it is not Palin's lack of experience that is bothering them, but rather the way she governs. So, already they did not like McCain, so add that to the lack of solid energy behind the pick of Palin, and you have some moderate conservatives leaning toward the D ticket.

I expect more people and conservative media to follow in the Seattle Times footsteps.

 

[CPort]

I have a question. Why do you consider the Seattle Times conservative?

 

[TooFarTampa]

I have a question. Why do you consider the Seattle Times conservative?

It's all relative. When you have a two-paper town or market (and there aren't that many of them anymore), usually one of them is the yin to the other's yang. The Post-Intelligencer is more liberal editorially. The Times is more conservative.

From Wikipedia:

The Times reporting has received seven Pulitzer Prizes.[3] It has an international reputation for its investigative journalism, in particular.[5]

Editorially, the Times is slightly more conservative than its sister paper, the P-I. It endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2000 (while the P-I endorsed Al Gore), but endorsed John Kerry in 2004.

 

[CPort]

It's all relative. When you have a two-paper town or market (and there aren't that many of them anymore), usually one of them is the yin to the other's yang. The Post-Intelligencer is more liberal editorially. The Times is more conservative.

From Wikipedia:

thanks!

 

[Miss Critter]

I remember the conservatives threatening the GOP by promising to vote for the Dem, to send a message to the GOP. Your post refreshed that thought, and I wonder why so many Reps have given in and are siding with McCain, whom they don't like. I never hear talk of that threat anymore.

I firmly believe that this is part of the reason. Sad (especially in 2008), but true:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.
Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

By the way, I totally agree with the editorial posted by rapunzel, and with her succinct commentary.

 

[TooFarTampa]

By the way, I totally agree with the editorial posted by rapunzel, and with her succinct commentary.

Me too!

 

[wrobert]

It's all relative. When you have a two-paper town or market (and there aren't that many of them anymore), usually one of them is the yin to the other's yang. The Post-Intelligencer is more liberal editorially. The Times is more conservative.

So the Times is actually not a conservative paper? It is just more conservative than the other paper so it is labeled as conservative? The title of this thread and the information you are giving is not matching up, alas, I am confused again.

 

[TooFarTampa]

So the Times is actually not a conservative paper? It is just more conservative than the other paper so it is labeled as conservative? The title of this thread and the information you are giving is not matching up, alas, I am confused again.

I don't read the Seattle Times, but I'm gathering it probably is on par with the Tampa Tribune's editorial page, which leans Republican/conservative. It's probably not on par with the National Review.