Tom,

You made your catty remark about me offering “little, if any additional support” for my post — but didn’t even bother to click through the hyperlink in my post which directs to the VERY long (too long, probably) and detailed piece I wrote on the topic a month ago. Maybe I should apologize for not reprinting my entire 1,500-or-so-word essay every the issue comes up, but that’s what hyperlinks are for.

Normally I’d just post the link, but since apparently you don’t use them. This is what I write on Jan 29: “You can’t support Obama AND McCain: It’s time for newspapers to stop endorsing candidates”

When it comes to their political positions, even someone as near-sighted as Mr. Magoo could see the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain. But just in case, let’s quickly review the obvious.

Barack Obama was against invading Iraq in 2002 — he called it a “dumb war” — and has sponsored legislation to begin withdrawing the troops that are there now. John McCain supported the war from Day One and called one recent non-binding resolution to withdraw troops “a vote of no confidence” in the U.S. military. Obama has been an unwavering percent supporter of abortion rights his entire career, with an 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood, while McCain has a 0 percent rating from NARAL and in February of last year called for overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain supports school vouchers, while Obama opposes them. Obama voted to reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, while McCain voted against it.

You want more? McCain is vehemently opposed to a universal health care plan, while Obama supports one. Obama supports Net neutrality, while McCain has been a foe. Sure, you can point to areas where they agree — on some key immigration issues or the estate tax, to name two — but by and large there is a huge gap. Consider this: Obama is rated 77 percent “liberal” on social issues, while McCain has a positive 83 percent rating from the Christian Coalition.

Why go through this drill? To show that you shouldn’t be going around expressing any kind of simultaneous support for both Obama (or Hillary Clinton, whose positions on many issues are similar) AND John McCain to get a crack at becoming the 44th president of the United States unless a) You truly believe that issues and the core political ideals that underlie them are virtually irrelevant, that the only thing that matters when you sit in the Oval Office is some objective definition of “character” and a willingness to seek the mushy middle ground or b) you are a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic off your medication.

Take your pick, but in recent days many of America’s best and brightest newspapers have done exactly that, telling their readers why Democrats should want Obama or Clinton to be POTUS and then turning around and explaining — often on the same patch of dead-tree real estate — why GOPers should back McCain. Newspaper publishers will tell you that political endorsements are a sign of boldness, taking a strong stand and participating in civic life just as they hope their readers will do.

The Los Angeles Times actually decided to get back in the presidential endorsement business in 2008 for the first time in 36 years. Jim Newton, editor of the editorial pages, explained it this way to Editor and Publisher:

“I think it is appropriate, it is a traditional function of the paper,” Newton told E&P. “We ask readers to vote and we should put ourselves under the same function.”
“[P]ut ourselves under the same function?” The awkwardness and discomfort of Newton’s language should be your first clue that great newspapers and editorial candidate endorsements are an awful fit.

In fact, this is the only endorsement that you will see here at Attytood in 2008: We endorse the idea that newspapers should be getting out of the endorsement biz, not back into it as the L.A. Times has done. Not endorsing individual candidates should be a matter of principle, and what’s more, a look at the endorsement process so far in 2008 shows the end product, while well intentioned, is for the most part a vapid exercise.

First, the principle. I believe that journalists, and certainly newspaper editorial pages, should be bastions of bold dynamic support for new ideas and civic values — but not for individual candidates or political parties. The reason why is simple: Core beliefs are constant, while people can change. What’s more, supporting a candidate — even through a vehicle as tepid as most newspaper endorsements — gives you being the appearance of becoming a partisan, at least in this sense: A partisan will look for an excuse that might condone the very same behavior — a breach of ethics, say — he would condemn in someone else.

Let’s take one simple and important issue: The war in Iraq. A newspaper that takes a strong editorial position that the war is against American values is sending a signal to its readers on an important ideal that will matter a great deal to most of them. The lack of candidate endorsements makes it easier, in my opinion, to criticize individual office holders and candidates who either oppose or betray (as the Democrats in Congress arguably have done to war opponents) the paper’s editorial stance on Iraq, or to praise positive actions, regardless of political party.

Would newspapers that endorsed a Democratic Congress in 2006 as a means to end the war then be less impatient and more forgiving over its subsequent failure to do so? Perhaps. And for newspapers that have taken a clear stand on Iraq, what kind of mixed message does it send readers to turn around and endorse primary candidates who oppose the war (Obama) or support it (McCain) or are all over the map (Clinton)? And that’s just one of many issues facing America.

But then the truth is, most newspaper candidate endorsements fudge over all these messy ideological questions anyway — weighted heavily, at least in presidential contests, towards those in the race with the blandest, most centrist, least ideological personas. Instead of endorsing a candidate because he or she will end the war, or name judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, almost every endorsement editorial will focus on the less-tangibles of character, leadership, resume and past experience. Those things must be considered, yes, but the end product is ultimately a disservice to the reading public, because it sends the clear — and false — message that ideas don’t matter in America.

Let’s look at one prominent newspaper that just endorsed both a Democrat and a Republican in the primaries: The New York Times. At least in endorsing Clinton on the Democrat side, they throw a bone to the notion of ideas:

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

It sure sounds like this supposed “openness to explaining herself and not just her programs” (which I haven’t really noticed, for what it’s worth) is the most important thing to the New York Times, because they’d surely be lost if the editorial board had to judge candidates based on what they say they’ll do if elected.

Now here’s what they said about their GOP choice, McCain:

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle.

Lower down in this editorial, they say it’s impossible to support Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.
So when Romney veers to the political right it’s “shape-shifting,” but when McCain does essentially the same thing, changing his stance on the 2001 Bush tax cuts or currying favor with the Christian Right, it’s only an “occasional tactical pander” — because the clever minds at the New York Times know, apparently, that he doesn’t really mean it. Do you see the earlier point about becoming a partisan, about forgiving the “tactical pander” of the endorsed candidate and blasting the “shape-shifting” of the non-endorsed candidate?

That fact that a politician can be said to “pander” and then have ” the character to stand on principle” in the VERY SAME SENTENCE tells you much of what you need to know about the quaint and bizarre practice of newspaper endorsements, and why they should be put out to pasture. (Or look again at Sunday’s Inquirer endorsement, which backed Obama because he’s bring “change” but then hailed McCain on the basis of “experience.” Huh?)

If you’ll notice a running theme here, that theme would be…John McCain. In fact, there’s no doubt that, in a sense, John McCain is the “newspaper candidate” in 2008, the New England Patriots of endorsements. He is just too perfect for journalism’s bizarro world — a backstory as a Vietnam POW hero that can be praised by liberals and conservatives alike, a seeming centrist posture (despite a mostly conservative voting record) because he’s worked with Democrats on a few issues, and most importantly that reputation as a “straight talker,” even if a lot of it truly stems ironically from double-talk, like signaling to reporters in 1999-2000 he’s not really that anti-abortion despite his 100 percent pro-life voting history.

In a nutshell, John McCain is the candidate who is the least offensive — exactly what most American newspapers strive to be, a least objectionable program for a bored and shrinking audience. Is it any accident that almost every endorsement so far has been the three most centrist or center-left candidates in the race — Clinton, Obama, and McCain. How many newspapers, even with left-leaning editorial pages the rest of the time, have endorsed the fiery populism of John Edwards, and how many conservative newspapers out there in the Heartland are recommending the “values”-based Mike Huckabee? Hardly any.

In fact, could there be a more absurdist venture than liberal-oriented editorial pages like those in the Inquirer here in Philadelphia or at the New York Times deigning to tell Republicans, for the most part conservatives, whom to vote for in the coming primaries. Why bother? The great irony is that everybody knows that in October — if indeed McCain does win the GOP race — that his character flaws that were played down in January will suddenly loom as more important, and his strong points of Super Tuesday will be now forgotten in comparison to Obama or Clinton, whom they will surely endorse in the general election. Which means this entire exercise is marked by a kind of intellectual dishonesty.

So let’s make the boldest choice we can, in 2012 if it’s too late for ‘08: To chuck endorsements altogether. Newspapers need to make their editorial pages lively and interesting and passionate and chock full of new and unconventional ideas, with plenty of room for a diversity of reader/citizen viewpoints — and these pages should be linked to fair and honest news coverage of where each candidate stands.

And once we’ve accomplished this wonderful flurry of civic journalism, it’s time to stand back and let informed voters do their thing.

Make up their own minds.

In an age of corporate mass media monopolization by global media conglomerates, candidates who are able to avoid media scrutiny because a newspaper like the NY Times plans to endorse them in the general election have a tremendous advantage. For example, because the NY Times editors plan to endorse Obama in the 2008 general election it appears to be not covering the Obama campaign’s link to the 2001 Superior Bank S&L Scandal in the same way it covered the Clintons’ link to the Madison Guaranty S&L 1980s scandal, during the 1992 election campaign.

After the Illinois-based Superior Bank S&L collapsed in July 2001, the Office of Inspector General’s February 2002 reporte concluded that “based on our review of the failure of Superior Bank it appears that some of the decisions made by Superior management rise to the level of insider abuse.”

Yet before Superior Bank failed (at a cost of $440 million to U.S. taxpayers) due to its board’s financially reckless engagement in subprime mortgage lending and predatory lending, Barack Obama accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution on Sept. 14, 1999 by then-Superior Bank board member Penny Pritzker. And, after naming Penny Pritzker to be his 2008 presidential campaign’s national finance chair on Jan. 31, 2007, Obama said that he was “proud that” the former Superior Bank S&L official “has agreed to partner with me in this important venture.” For more information about the role of the Obama campaign’s national finance chair in the 2001 Superior Bank Scandal (which the newspapers that are planning to endorse Obama’s candidacy in the general election are not willing to disclose to their readers), you can check out the Nov. 8, 2002 article, titled “Breaking The Bank,” that appeared in In These Times, at the following link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/671/

These comments and this blog post are the best things I’ve read since Jesus bought a computer.

Bunch has lost all credibility in recent weeks.

He has turned into a non-objective shill for Obama.

His stance is reflective of a larger problem with journalism these days.