This is a surprise. I don't have access to the whole thing, but the key bits are below: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ct17,1,3673281.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed -- This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary. One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them. This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children. A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first." Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president. [...] For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II. That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed. There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates. But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.
It is? They endorsed Bush in 2000, and I believe Dole before that. It's a well known fact that the Tribune's board leaned right and the Sun Times' leaned left. It's generallly pretty big news when the Trib endorses a democrat in Chicagoland. What's actually interesting is that a number of newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have switeched to Kerry. To date, no newspaper that endorsed Gore in 2000 has switched to Bush.
I was about to post the same thing Sam. Surprising my arse. Anyways, I just started an utlimate Newspaper endorsement thread. An absolutely ringing endorsement.
But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.
you're surprised that a newspaper in a blue state can support a republican candidate? Are you also surprised when you find a gay or black republican? does your political wang quiver when you meet a gay black republican? do you assume all members in a group think and act exactly alike, because that has been a recurring theme in all your posts. Are you going to post another one when the Washington Times supports Bush? Keep this up and I'll start such threads with titles like, "I met a guy from Texas who doesn't support Bush!! I'm surprised! My weiner has been tickled!" "I found a rich guy who doesn't like bush! yay! the army who follow my beliefs is converting the evil peoples!" Seriously, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish whenever you note that someone who, despite their possible group affiliations no matter how broad, goes against what you percieve to be "against their group". This goes for some of the liberals on the board (note, your counterargument about the NYtimes endorsement, which is obvious), but you do it excessively. It demonstrates two things: 1) you don't know people and would be a horrible salesperson 2) you look at the world as a bunch of groups. With that kind of mindset, you will constantly be surprised your entire life, kind of like those people who were surprised Tiger woods was so good at golf, who looked at his color and not at how hard he worked his entire life.
Somehow I doubt that you was your original context. But don't worry about it. I was surprised to learn the Trib was so unapologetically Republican in such a traditionally democratic city too, back in 1997 when I first moved to Chicago.
never lived there, and i'm not familiar with the politics of either paper, but i am astonished that there should be so much debate over the meaning of "surprise." was that really the most remarkable thing about my post?
who would've thunk it...this needed a thread? if you've been even remotel cognizant of the tribune's coverage of Kerry, you'd know that had the times endorsed Kerry it would have been a revelation, and truely worthy of a thread. but by all means, carry on the cheerleading.
not sure how you got from the Trib endorsing Bush to Tiger Woods, but, if I may paraphrase the Dred (not, not Scott decision) Pirate Roberts, "truly, you have a dizzying intellect!" you seem to think you know me, or at least my positions on everything from this election, to gay marriage, to golf, and racism. and all that from the meaning of the word "surprise!" apparently, liguistic clintonism is alive and well on the bbs. since i'm a horrible salesman, although i've made a decent living at it for most of my adult life, and am incapable of an original thought, by way of response, allow me to quote dick cheney, speaking on the floor of the senate to patrick leahy...
