Making history
October 20th, 2008 at 10:55am Anna Derocher
The Chicago Tribune made history when it endorsed Barack Obama for president. The pub has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. And did they hear about it. More than 3,000 comments on that editorial so far. Some applauding the Trib for its choice. Others ripped the Trib for selling out. Trib Columnist Phil Rosenthal even wrote a column to further explain the endorsement.
The Register Star, too, endorsed Obama. And Wally Haas, our editorial page editor, is hearing today about the pick. Nowhere near the volume of response the Trib is getting, however. The Register Star has endorsed Democratic candidates for president before. So my guess is our readers weren’t as surprised as Chicago Tribune readers.
And in case you want to keep up with our endorsements, you’ll find a link at our Election 2008 site.
Entry Filed under: Endorsements, Election 2008, Chicago Tribune
15 Comments Add your own
1. Mark Cooper | October 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I am not happy that a newspaper, supposedly geared to being impartial, endorses anyone for political office. Now that the CT has endorsed a socialist, I have cancelled my subscription. AND since it turns out the RRS is following lock step with the other liberal papers, I WILL BE CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION to the RRS as well
2. Anna Voelker | October 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Mark: I am sorry to hear that.
3. Tim Keller | October 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I hope that readers do cancel their subscription to your newspaper. Tell me, how does your newspaper (remember freedom of speech and all that) endorse the biggest socialist in the Senate? You need to explain why his socialist ideas are good for America?
4. Anna Voelker | October 20th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Tim: Why do you think Obama is a socialist?
5. the dude abides man | October 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@ Anna:
Why do you think that newspapers make endorsements, while other media do not?
6. Anna Voelker | October 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Dude: Good question. See you asked Wally the same thing on his blog, A Seat at the Table. My answer is a lot like his. It’s our responsibility as members of the community to share insight that we have access to as members of the media. I am not sure why other media do not endorse. I have never worked for another media and am not equipped to answer that question. The reason why newspapers endorse may have something to do with history. Back when newspapers started, they usually were affiliated with particular parties. And they made no bones about their allegiances. For me (because I happen to sit on the Editorial Board), it’s important that we encourage people to vote and give our reasons why we support one candidate over another.
7. Tim Keller | October 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Anna, Do you not think Barack Obama and his ideas are socialist? Explain to me what ‘redistribution of wealth’ and the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ are? You of all people should be familiar with the Fairness Doctrine since it deals with media outlets. Why does Barack want to limit conservative talk shows on the radio and tv?
8. Tim Keller | October 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Hello? How come you haven’t responded? Is this what you (and the media) do when asked a tough question? Just ignore it because you can’t defend Obama.
If you endorse him as your candidate, then please answer the questions posed to you. Your readers wants to know why you endorse his socialist policies?
9. Anna Voelker | October 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Tim, I asked you to tell me why you think Obama is a socialist. Instead you came back at me with questions. I am more than willing to have a conversation with you. Socialism is an economic model. Democracy is a form of government that is held by the people. To me, that means that you and I can vote for whoever we want. And really isn’t that what makes America great?
10. Bob Trojan | October 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Anna, Tim, Dude…read my blogs on “tax the Rich, Maggie….” and Corporate Taxes….manufacturing 2.0.
Obama is considered a socialist because he wants to distribute wealth and this is what got England into malaise years ago before Maggie changed things….kinda like Robin Hood
11. Tim Keller | October 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Socialism is economic model? How is that? Explain to me how socialized medicine is purely economic. Socialism is control by the goverment in all facets of life. See France, Canada or just about any European country. If you believe socialism is purely an economic model, then you must feel Communism is the same thing. Please explain yourself on why you feel it is purely an economic model.
12. Anna Voelker | October 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Tim, my colleague Annette LaCross wrote an excellent column in BusinessRockford.com magazine a few weeks ago. Here’s what she said:
The most oft-quoted legislator last week was Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican who called the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street ‘financial socialism and un-American.’
He’s half-right.
It’s part of the socialist agenda — everyone should benefit from capitalism as long as the free market is controlled. In this case, by the federal government. Funded by you and me. But it’s hardly un-American. In fact, it’s a rerun. In 1933, the Roosevelt administration created the Home Owners’ Loan Corp. to buy $3 billion — that’s a cool $47 billion or so in 2008 dollars — in bad mortgages and refinance them to homeowners to stem a rise in foreclosures. The government even made a profit on the deal.
Actually, the government has a long and storied history of stepping in when capitalism runs amok, more than a dozen times in the last 80 years. In 1989, the Resolution Trust Corp. was created by Congress to take over bad assets after the collapse of the country’s savings and loans.
So far, the only thing President Bush’s bailout plan has created is a lot of noise.
13. bob trojan | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
All…Maybe you should all read a few books about the foundation of our country and why we had an American Revolution against British rule. Read about Athens 5th c. and their democratic methods.
Watch the recent John Stossel program that showed how private enterprise (including Brad Pitt) were able to rebuild homes faster in New Orleans than FEMA could do. They “just did it”
This isn’t Bush vs all others, it’s about government interference in our lives! Whether national or local.
What gets me is that our society is becoming more “gimme, gimme” and all the politicians are making promises just to win votes. I’m upset that society is making us become more and more beholden to government and to me that’s socialism.
I’ve lived through this stuff, it’s not a theory I read in a book.
We need to know “how to paddle our own canoe”
By the way, read the story of the 1800 elections.
14. Tim Keller | October 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Anna, Please read bullet point #11 again and answer the question. Your reply has nothing to do with Barack Obama and his ideas.
Bob is right on the money with his commentary.
15. Anna Voelker | October 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Tim, I never suggested Obama was a socialist. All I told you is who the Register Star endorsed for president. You are the one calling Obama a socialist. I just asked you to tell me why you think he is one. What do I have to defend? I guess I am unclear what you exactly how you expect me to respond.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed