Even though I’ve been heavily cynical about the Star Tribune, I did want to note about their endorsements for tomorrow’s paper. David Brauer points out:
In the Sixth, editorialists avoid nuclear outrage by picking Tinklenberg. They weigh in for the first time on you-know-what; Bachmann’s “anti-America” paradigm “adds to the list of bizarre incidents and statements that undercut her credibility as a political leader.”
Even though the Star Tribune has gone far to the right, nobody in their right mind can endorse Bachmann. Interesting though, is that they absolutely destroy Erik Paulsen but cannot bring themselves to endorse Madia so they opt for a “non-endorsement“ instead:
But Paulsen’s endorsement interview was disappointing. His answers on energy, health care and foreign policy lacked depth, detail and vision. Paulsen performed better at debates, but did not make the case that he has the depth needed to be a strong, independent leader in Congress.
Paulsen was a fiscal and social conservative in the Legislature, voting for measures that this newspaper opposed. Why he’s casting himself as a moderate in this race is unclear. His conservative credentials are solid; he should have run on them.
Paulsen is farther right than the Star Tribune and they’re criticizing him for not running on his conservative credentials? They even point out how he’s trying to run as a moderate. While I am not at all surprised by the Star Tribune not endorsing Madia, the fact that they trash Paulsen so badly is rather telling.
Loading ...
Has any paper endorsed Franken yet?
Patrick,
Does the fact that the financial experts at the Financial Times endorsed Obama change your mind about him? Right, and the Trib and PiPress don’t really mean a damn thing either.
Later, Alec
I really believe viewers are not swayed by newspaper’s endorsements, except when they trash a candidate like Paulsen it’s gotta hurt…what kind of goofball spin will Brodkorb try on this on? It’s not suprising they didn’t endorse Madia, as they hate EFCA and he supports it….does it suprise anyone the Strib doesn’t like Unions? The hit job on Paulsen is almost as good for Madia as an outright endorsement.
The New York Times delivers … for those that would like to read real news.
A single paper endorsement means nothing, but not a single paper is willing to put their stamp of approval on Franken. That it really telling.
Again Patrick, is it not telling, then, that Obama get a 3 to 1 of endorsements from papers? If it is so telling on Franken, why aren’t you an Obama supporter?
Thanks, Alec
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.
Please go back to high school - quickly.
Don’t come back until you have something remotely intelligent to say.
And stop reading trashy right wing comics.
I have never said that I support McCain/Palin, and I agree that the endorsements for Obama are telling about his candidacy, especially when papers are giving politically divided endorsements. In fact, I see Obama as a great candidate who will be a great president. I do not support Franken, however.
We need to remember that a filibuster-proof Senate is not a good thing when either party is in control. Debate and compromise is a good thing. History shows that when one party has total control, things eventually get out of hand.
I hope that was intelligent enough.
Patrick, your post hits the nail on the head. A filabuster-proof Senate is not a good thing. It allows the party in power to move to the left or right extreme, abandoning the centrists who were the swing voters responsible for their election.
The last two President/Congressional supermajority combos we had resulted in a swift voter shift of power to the other side: LBJ in the late 60’s and Jimmy Carter in the late 70’s.