Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Alaska's top newspaper endorses ObamaFollow

#1 Oct 27 2008 at 4:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Is that really necessary? I mean, I'm content with Obama winning...we don't need the competition just continually embarrassed do we? How many slaps in the face to they need to take?

Anchorage Daily News says Palin "too risky" to be one step away from the presidency

Quote:
Alaska newspaper endorses Obama

The top newspaper in the home state of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president.

Alaska's largest-circulation paper, the Anchorage Daily News, said state governor Mrs Palin was "too risky" to be one step away from the presidency.

In an editorial it says her nomination "captivated" Alaskans but that must not "overwhelm all other judgment".

The focus should be on John McCain, it said, calling him the "wrong choice".

'Stumbled badly'

The newspaper said many Alaskans were "proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage".

It also described Mrs Palin as a "force to be reckoned with".

"Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake," the editorial reads.

However, it says that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with the economic crisis.

"[John McCain] embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years", it says.

By contrast, the Daily News suggests, Mr Obama "brings far more promise to the office".

It says: "In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand."

In other endorsements over the weekend the Times-Despatch in Richmond, Virginia, backed Mr McCain, saying he was "the clear and unambiguous choice" at a time when national security was the key issue.

The Grand Rapids in Michigan supported Mr McCain for his "sheer depth of experience, principled courage and unassailable independence".

But the Baltimore Sun said Mr Obama's "steadiness and thoughtful approach to issues show he has the judgment and depth of knowledge to lead the country".


heh.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#2 Oct 27 2008 at 4:59 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
This just keeps getting better.
#3 Oct 27 2008 at 5:18 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
I saw this somewhere already, but in that one they pointed out that Alaska's top newspaper pretty much always endorses the Democratic presidential candidate, so it wasn't exactly unexpected or shocking.
#4 Oct 27 2008 at 5:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I just heard on the radio this am that three of the four major newpapers in Maine endorsed Obama. The three that endorsed him are all owned by the same company, but claim the endorsement is chosen strictly by the editorial staff.

For those who know or care, the Lewiston/Auburn Sun Journal endorsed McCain citing the need for compromise and that McCain would be better able to 'reach across the aisle'.

Can we not just seat our representatives 'dem - pub - dem - pub' and alleviate the need for an aisle?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Oct 27 2008 at 5:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
I saw this somewhere already, but in that one they pointed out that Alaska's top newspaper pretty much always endorses the Democratic presidential candidate, so it wasn't exactly unexpected or shocking.


Perhaps...but it's not rare that a paper that normally goes for one party ends up endorsing the other when they're a prominent local politician...like the Chicago Tribune going for Obama when they hadn't endorsed a Democrat EVER in the paper's 161 year history...especially when it's pretty clear that McCain-Palin have no chance at this point. Throw them a freakin' bone, eh?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#6 Oct 27 2008 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, apparently not all Alaskans are Alaska nationalists.

Still, I keep getting that uneasy feeling that the Pubbies lost this one on purpose.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Oct 27 2008 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Communist liberal rag The Financial times endorses Obama
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 27 2008 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Communist liberal rag The Financial times endorses Obama


And the neo-Troskist-Communist-Leninist-Marxist-lefty-pinko-liberal-wealth-spreading-Maoist "The Economist" has endorsed him too.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 Oct 27 2008 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
How are the AZ newspaper endorsements? I see that, out of a couple new polls, McCain is leading in his home state by around 4 points.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10gbaji, Posted: Oct 27 2008 at 7:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The last line really tells it all, doesn't it?
#11 Oct 27 2008 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not sure what your point is here.
That I can accurately call that any paper which endorses a liberal will be denounced as some liberal rag
Quote:
The last line really tells it all, doesn't it?
Hey! I'm right! Smiley: clap
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Oct 27 2008 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Er?...

Circular argument much there Joph?


What's bizarre here is that you seem to want to use the term "Conservative" to mean someone who should support the Republican candidate, but then insist that when someone doesn't, it's not because that person or entity is liberal, but that McCain isn't conservative enough? Or something?

Look. Labels are just labels. If we assume that the Republicans are for sake of argument "Conservatives", and the Democrats are "Liberals", then if a paper endorses the Democrat, they we can assume they prefer the liberal position to that of the conservative, and well... are "Liberal". Past that, we're getting stuck on labels.


If you endorse Obama for president, you presumably prefer his platform to McCain's. You're free to apply whatever label you want to that position you want Joph. I guess I don't see the point in trying to manipulate labels here. What's the point? Are you trying to argue that Obama is really more conservative than McCain? Has he somehow switched sides here and no one noticed? It just seems more likely that what you're labeling as "Conservative" is really closer to what Obama is than what McCain is (or else, why endorse Obama?). Which just makes your own label irrelevant...


I know I've asked you this every time you do this, but I'll do it again? What exactly do you think it means when some person or group you label "conservative" endorses Obama?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Oct 27 2008 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll just quote the wiki entry:



Wikipedia is a reliable source now?

Well hot damn.
#14 Oct 27 2008 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
erm
It's funny, because you're pretending to miss the point. Don't worry we get it.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 11:26pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15 Oct 27 2008 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll just quote the wiki entry:



Wikipedia is a reliable source now?


When it's not wrong, yes.


Show me some evidence that the Financial Times is a conservative organization which would absolutely never endorse a Democrat and... Oh wait! Can't do that, can you...?


Again. Either the labels are relevant, or they aren't. Either we assume that the Republican party is more conservative than the Democrat party and therefore anyone who's actually a "Conservative" will always endorse the Republican over the Democrat, or we don't. If we do, then we can say that one is either conservative or liberal based on their endorsement (which Joph seemed to think was wrong). If we don't make that assumption, then we're using some other definition of the labels and finding a person or organization that calls itself (or is called) conservative that endorses a Democrat isn't really that shocking or strange...


In either case, Joph's big revelation is utterly irrelevant.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Oct 27 2008 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Circular argument much there Joph?
Nope. I made a tongue-in-cheek description of the Financial Times, knowing that the knee-jerk reaction from the usual suspects is to denounce anyone supporting/endorsing a liberal as a pinko. I wasn't calling the FT a rabid right-wing publication; I was noting that it's endorsement of Obama would damn it in the eyes of conservatives as some liberal rag in the tank for Obama.

I wasn't really trying to "make a point" by it but rather have some fun with it. However, you were happy to rush into it and start quoting Wikipedia, ignoring the "politically centrist" section of it to harp on some quote by Chomsky. You weren't content to just say "Actually, the Ft is centrist" which still would have missed the point but at least showed some restraint on your part. Nope, you had to go that extra mile and crow about Chomsky and start babbling about the New York Times.

Sometimes I get proven correct without lifting a finger.
gbaji wrote:
What's bizarre here is that you seem to want to use the term "Conservative" to mean someone who should support the Republican candidate, but then insist that when someone doesn't, it's not because that person or entity is liberal, but that McCain isn't conservative enough? Or something?
With God as my witness I have no fucking clue what you babbling about here.
Quote:
If you endorse Obama for president, you presumably prefer his platform to McCain's. You're free to apply whatever label you want to that position you want Joph. I guess I don't see the point in trying to manipulate labels here. What's the point? Are you trying to argue that Obama is really more conservative than McCain? Has he somehow switched sides here and no one noticed? It just seems more likely that what you're labeling as "Conservative" is really closer to what Obama is than what McCain is (or else, why endorse Obama?). Which just makes your own label irrelevant...
Seriously... it's as though you get paid by the word. No one was calling Obama conservative or McCain liberal or seriously calling the FT a commie rag or whatever. You just missed the fact that a remark wasn't to be taken seriously and started hyperventilating.
Quote:
I know I've asked you this every time you do this, but I'll do it again? What exactly do you think it means when some person or group you label "conservative" endorses Obama?
I don't believe you've ever asked me that but whatever.

It means they prefer Obama despite Obama going against their typical ideology. I'd say a more telling question is what does it mean that they don't endorse the guy who does better fit their ideology? In more than one conservative endorsement, it doesn't mean that they love Obama or have turned liberal; it just means that they think McCain is so dangerously unqualified for the job that they'd prefer someone who steers the ship in a different direction to someone who just slams it up against the rocks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Oct 27 2008 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll just quote the wiki entry:



Wikipedia is a reliable source now?


When it's not wrong, yes.


Show me some evidence that the Financial Times is a conservative organization which would absolutely never endorse a Democrat and... Oh wait! Can't do that, can you...?


No one here ever said that the Financial Times was a "conservative organization which would absolutely never endorse a Democrat." No one even implied it. You're grasping at straws to try and act as though some facetious comment was an attempt at attacking you or something, I don't even know with you.

You also know full damn well that Wikipedia is an overall unreliable source. There's no way in hell I could use it for a reference and turn it in to my professor with the logic of "The page isn't wrong. Prove it wrong if you won't let me use it!!!" If you want to cite something unreliable, it's your job to validate the citation.
#18 Oct 27 2008 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Endorsing Obama now is like betting on a two horse race when one of the horses has a ruptured artery and the other's a hundred yards ahead.

EDIT: Yes, I did just call Palin a ruptured artery.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 11:52pm by Kavekk
#19 Oct 27 2008 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Kavekk wrote:
EDIT: Yes, I did just call Palin a ruptured artery.

Better than a fatal cancer.

(Using freerepublic source for kicks)

#20gbaji, Posted: Oct 27 2008 at 9:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Irrelevant. Look. It's either correct, or it's not. If it's not, then the FT really is a conservative paper. In which case, Joph did mean to argue that it was conservative and therefore it's surprising that they would endorse Obama. If the wiki take is correct, then it's been endorsing liberal candidates for years now, and Joph's posting is just strange and out of place contextually.
#21 Oct 27 2008 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What do you think the purpose was for Joph to post that? Read the context. Why pull a random paper which endorsed Obama and make a point of posting about it?
Because it was a financial-oriented publication which is nice to have on your side in these troubled times.
Quote:
Heck. Go a step further. Why did Nexa post about the Alaskan paper endorsing Obama?
Because it is Palin's hometown paper.
Quote:
It's all about implication. If no one challenges the implication, it gets to stand and everyone assumes that these are traditionally conservative leaning papers who crossed over to Obama or something.
No one ever implied that except in your feverish brain.
Quote:
Apparently, just asking Joph to clarify his point is equivalent to declaring a paper a "liberal rag" though...
No, but going into "LOL Chomsky!! OMG New York Times!!!" mode is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Oct 28 2008 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
No one here ever said that the Financial Times was a "conservative organization which would absolutely never endorse a Democrat." No one even implied it.


Er? I just asked him what his point was, and quoted a wiki page about the paper. I didn't make any claims about it at all.


You know perfectly well you made at least one claim about the Financial Times, I'm not going to guide you through your own post as though you were a child.


Quote:
Um.... But while on the topic. What do you think the purpose was for Joph to post that? Read the context. Why pull a random paper which endorsed Obama and make a point of posting about it?

Heck. Go a step further. Why did Nexa post about the Alaskan paper endorsing Obama?


How many times do you need to be told it was a facetious point before you decide to listen?

Nexa probably posted it because you'd expect Alaska to rally behind the governor they cherish, regardless of the other part of the ticket. Read her second post in the thread.

Quote:
It's all about implication. If no one challenges the implication, it gets to stand and everyone assumes that these are traditionally conservative leaning papers who crossed over to Obama or something. But if someone does challenge the implication, we're attacked with what has to be the most bizarre argument ever...

I've seen this tactic a hundred times. So I didn't challenge the implication, but just asked what his point was. Apparently, just asking Joph to clarify his point is equivalent to declaring a paper a "liberal rag" though...


An implication no one put forth in a serious manner but you're trying to start an argument over. You didn't only ask Joph to clarify his point, you then strongly implied that the Financial Times was liberally leaning through a quote in a Wikipedia article. Or did you just do that for ***** and giggles?

Quote:
Huh? I asked for clarification. He gave a lame answer. Someone else questioned the validity of the wiki page, and I asked for someone to provide evidence that it was incorrect. I'm well aware that it's not the best source in the world, but barring you finding some countering information, I'm not going to assume that it's 100% wrong just because it's wiki.


And you can't assume that it's 100% correct either. The issue here is more that you like to quibble over proper sources and what is unbiased and valid, and then you threw wikipedia out there knowing that it isn't a reliable source.



Quote:
Yes. Hence why I made a point of saying it was a wiki quote *and* asking if anyone had evidence that the FT was a conservative paper.


Flat out lie. Nowhere in the post where you said it was from wikipedia did you ask for proof that it was conservative, that came later after I pointed out that wiki isn't reliable.

Quote:
Irrelevant. Look. It's either correct, or it's not. If it's not, then the FT really is a conservative paper. In which case, Joph did mean to argue that it was conservative and therefore it's surprising that they would endorse Obama. If the wiki take is correct, then it's been endorsing liberal candidates for years now, and Joph's posting is just strange and out of place contextually.


You can't decide a point is irrelevant because you don't like it. Sorry. Regardless, it being incorrect doesn't mean FT is conservative, it means that FT could be anywhere on the political spectrum. Regardless, Joph didn't "mean to argue" anything. Again, how many times do you need to be guided through that? It was a facetious comment that you walked right into.

Quote:
I don't really care which is true. I'm just amused that you seem to be trying to argue both sides of the logic at the same time and I'm not even sure why. You insist that no one implied that FT was a conservative paper, but then also insist that a wiki article saying that FT isn't conservative isn't reliable...


How is that two separate sides of logic? That would be me arguing that people here did imply a political slant in the Financial Times and then turning around and saying that no one did. Guess what? No one implied it. No one. At all. Joph JOKINGLY said that it would be branded liberal because it endorsed Obama, and then you came running in here, asked him what his point was, and then said it was liberal. Until you decided to get involved and take some kind of intellectual offense to a (once again!) facetious comment, no one here placed a political slant on the Financial Times.

You're also not quite understanding the wiki point here either. I don't care what Wikipedia says about the paper. It's not reliable. The portion you quoted said that it tends to be seen as centrist - it means nothing to me. They have no citation for where they got that information from. If they said the FT leans right or left, it would still mean nothing to me. It's not reliable.

One more time: it's not reliable.

Quote:
Um. Why? I'll ask you the same thing I asked Joph: What's your point?


Everyone else seems to be getting it. Why don't you take a guess, that way I can get some more humor out of your paranoia.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 244 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (244)