Chicago Tribune endorses Barack Obama

Obama 08
Obama 08

I usually vote for the Republican or Libertarian candidate for president, but this year I will be voting for Barack Obama. One reason is I’m really curious to see if having an African-American President will affect the racial dynamics in the U.S. But I will also be voting for Obama because the Republicans at the Federal level have lost my support due to the fiasco in Iraq, the warrantless wiretapping, the initiative to build a wall along the Mexico border, the Valerie Plame scandal, the controversy over the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, etc. The Chicago Tribune wrote about why they are endorsing Obama this year. The have never before endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate.

An excerpt from their October 17, 2008 article.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office — and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party’s course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush’s tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

[Update: I also forgot to mention the detainees being held in Guantanamo Detention Camp in Cuba and George Bush’s position on torture.]

15 Replies to “Chicago Tribune endorses Barack Obama”

  1. I always vote for change and have proudly never voted for a winning presidential candidate. I’m likely voting Obama this time so I could actually ruin that run. All the reasons you mentioned compel me. Additionally, I am concerned by the attitude of the current administration towards Science. And the Palin pick…terrible.

  2. The Republicans have really made a mess of things. So you’re going to vote for a Socialist who wants the government to redistribute wealth (from the producers to the non-producers) and who had a racist officiate at his wedding and baptize his children?

    Part of the Republicans’ problem is that they’ve been acting too much like Democrats! Spending like drunken sailors and increasing the size and power of government (with a corresponding loss of freedom). The answer is not to elect someone who will spend and reduce freedom even more!

    Voting for Obama is like saying, “My doctor was going to cause me to lose my foot, so I’m switching to a doctor who will cause me to lose my leg.”

    Valerie Plame scandal?

    The controversy over the dismissal of U.S. attorneys?

    Sounds like you’ve OD’d on NPR.

  3. Scooter Libby, George Bush’s assistent was convicted of obstruction and perjury in relation to the investigation of the Plame scandal. Does the source of this news affect it’s veracity?

  4. The use the Valerie Plame scandal as a reason to vote for Obama has NPR written all over it. The last time I checked, neither Scooter Libby nor his boss were on the ballot.

    I think the problem with NPR is not their veracity, but their credibility. I can distort and twist the news while giving you nothing but facts. Remember the story of the American and Russian competition where the Americans won? The Russian papers said, “Russian team takes second place. Americans came in second to last.”

  5. I like John McCain and I think he would have made a good president. It was a tough choice for me. But the the Republicans have made me so angry that I just couldn’t vote for McCain. I voted for Obama and voted a straight Libertarian ticket and then I filled in the rest of the ballot.

    At least we agree that the Republicans have made a mess of things. My choice for President goes against my desire for lower taxes and fewer social programs, but it is consistent with my views on foreign policy, which was the most important issue for me this election.

  6. The fact that Obama is friends with a racist is irrelevant. It’s more offensive that he had his kids baptized at all. Do we really need leaders who believe in fairy tales?

    I also see no evidence that Obama is a socialist. It’s surprising you’ve checked your brain at the door Bobmo, as your comments are usually better thought out. Obama has not proposed government take over every industry as would be the case in a socialist society.

    Redistribution of wealth is what our country was founded on. You know, take it away from the king, and give it to the productive members of society.

    Abraham Lincoln (another socialist?) signed off on the first graduated tax system. It was codified into the constitution when the 16th amendment was passed. Rich people should pay more. It’s the American way.

    Your characterization of Obama’s tax plan to “redistribute wealth (from the producers to the non-producers)” is simplistic. Perhaps if the so-called “non-producers” had a little more cash they could start businesses and become more productive producers than the current crop.

    There are plenty of rich people who did nothing productive to deserve the wealth they have. It makes perfect sense to take money away from the non-productive and give it to the productive.

    And I don’t get how you could paint Obama as a socialist while McCain signs off on a bail-out plan to socialize the banking system, the auto industry, and pretty much any other big industry run by rich, counter-productive workers. How are the Republicans different than Socialists?

  7. Bobmo, if it is unfair of me to fault Bush because of Scooter Libbey’s actions then it is unfair for you to fault Obama for his pastor’s actions. And didn’t Obama denounce his pastor’s more controversial ideas?

  8. Wow, so much to respond to. I used to debate politics at the drop of a hat, but for some reason, it’s become less important to me in recent years. Still, there are some very important issues that were at play in this recent election.

    First, I use the term “socialist” somewhat loosely. I agree, Obama has not proposed government take over every industry. However, as you correctly pointed out, Perry, the government is taking over parts of the financial industry and probably the auto industry, and any other industry “we can’t afford to let fail.” This is a move toward socialism, as you also correctly pointed out.

    But the fact that John McCain also voted for the bail-out is not relevant to the charge of socialism against Obama. It just means that the charge also applies to McCain! So, you’re right, Perry. The Republicans are (lately) just as socialist as the Democrats. And this includes President Bush. They have all violated their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    The Constitution is a “Delegated Powers” document. This means that the Federal Government has no rights unless they are explicitly granted by the Constitution (c.f. Tenth Amendment). Bush, McCain, and Obama are all guilty of advocating blatant violation of the Constitution, and should all be removed from office for doing so.

    By the way, I believe that if you make 10 times as much money as I do, you should pay 10 times that tax. Nothing unfair about that. I could really bore you with my opinions about economics, but I’ll bite my tongue….uh, keyboard.

    Dedwarmo, where did I say it is unfair of you to fault Bush because of Scooter Libbey’s actions? I think it’s completely fair. What doesn’t make sense, is voting for Obama because of Scooter Libbey’s actions! That’s a non-sequitur.

    Also, where did I fault Obama for his pastor’s actions? I fault Obama for Obama’s actions. And, choosing a racist as a “mentor” and “spiritual advisor” for twenty years is an action I find fault with.

    The fact that Obama is friends with a racist is irrelevant? It’s not irrelevant to me. What if a white candidate for governor of a southern state made race relations a cornerstone of his campaign, then it was discovered that he hung around with KKK members, and even attended some of their Klan meetings, gave money to them, and the Klan leader was one of his advisors. I think that fact would be relevant.

    “Leaders who believe in Fairy tales.” LOL. You just couldn’t resist getting a shot in, eh Perry? :-)

  9. Scooter Libbey is just one of the reasons I am unhappy with the Bush administration. Because the Bush administration acted so poorly I did not want a Republican in the Whitehouse for the next term.

  10. Dedwarmo, imho that doesn’t make sense. You might argue with more or less success (probably less) that Scooter Libbey was a good reason to vote against Bush if he were running, but unless there is something inherent in being a Republican, or you could make the case that McCain would be similarly guilty, voting for a Democrat because of the sins of a particular Republican doesn’t follow.

    Of course, there were two Democrats on the ballot this year, but that’s another story ;-(

    How about this theory in your defense: say there is nothing inherent about being a Republican that leads to Scooter Libbey-like behavior, but members of any party in power for too long may tend toward arrogance and taking liberties with ethics. In that case, you might be able to justify voting for the other party if you believe the Libbey behavior was a result of Republican domination of the White House. I wouldn’t envy you trying to make that case, though.

Comments are closed.