Um, Advocate? I suppose it's your job to endorse a political candidate. Therefore, I am not holding it completely against you that you endorsed McCain. However, your endorsement of McCain failed to mention vice-presidential candidate Palin. I'm refraining from using the words "cracked out" (adjective form, as in, "you are cracked out"), because I'm too mature and level-headed for that, but I think it was a foolish oversight not to factor Palin's presence into your decision.
While Palin was a hoot in her cameo on SNL, I can't say enough bad things about almost every politically-oriented word I've heard come out of her mouth. It's a horror show of ignorance and unpreparedness, and that's an unacceptable situation for the vice-president. If the Advocate's editorial board is endorsing McCain, they are also endorsing Palin for vice-president and possibly president. So why don't they mention her?
Is the Advocate OK with Palin? If so, tell me why. I'd love to hear. If the Advocate is not OK with Palin, and didn't mention her because they know she is an unacceptable choice, it's irresponsible to endorse McCain. Either way, I'd like to know what the Advocate thinks. It was kind of weird they didn't mention Palin, because her out-of-nowhere selection has been a big factor this presidential race.
I've been tactfully keeping mum on politics, because Stamford Talk is about Stamford, not about my own political leanings. But when the local paper endorses a candidate but ignores his choice of an extremely problematic running mate, it needs to be called out. That's an incomplete story, and readers notice.
If you missed the real Sarah Palin's cameo on SNL, here it is:
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Does the Advocate Also Endorse Palin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Amen! Apparently, entities endorsing McCain frequently leave out any mention of Palin since his poll numbers dropped so dramatically upon his choice of a running mate (I googled it). Perhaps they think we will forget she exists? Silly and somewhat insulting. How dumb do they think we are?
Total word. I'm boggling that they endorsed him, but how on earth do they leave her out of the equation? Especially when they admit that the decision was tough and that they could only endorse McCain with some qualifiers?
ST - It's my understanding that endorsements that do not mention Vice-Presidential candidates are intended to be endorsements of the Presidential candidate themselves. IMO, it would be in bad taste to say, "While we think candidate A would make a better candidate, in case they DIE, we'd choose candidate B."
Speaking for myself, I don't vote for a Presidential ticket based upon the VP. Never have.
As a former reporter for The Advocate, I really find newspaper endorsements a little bit silly. Even if necessary, I think VERY few people vote based on newspaper endorsements. So few people loyally read a newspaper these days and the media is not seen in a good light (unfortunately).
I do, however, know the editorial page editor at The Advocate and he is a man with principle and he very much views his job and profession very seriously. So though I disagree with this endorsement, I could never dismiss it as frivolous, knowing the people invovled
J from CT- I know the VP is usually an after thought in the race, but I don't think Palin can be seen that way. (I wish she could, trust me.) What does it say about McCain that he chose Palin?
TommyMac- I also find newspaper endorsements a little old-fashioned. They're not the unique source of news they used to be!
I should note that I hold the Advocate in incredibly high esteem, despite occasionally cracking on it on this blog! I officially love the Advocate. I do.
Barack is wack. Go Big Mac!
ST - I think the Democrat electorate's choice of candidate and the Republican candidate's choice of running-mate to be of similar caliber when it comes to experience.
And I find newspaper endorsements to be quaint, but completely uninfluential (non-influential? influentialless?)
If only McCain could be granted a Mulligan on his choice for a running mate. I've been pro McCain all along, but choosing her was very irrisponsible. I think his running mate should have the most qualified candidate which clearly she isn't. Still not sure who I will be voting for which is scary bcs I'm very opposed to Barrack's platform on all things financial.
My favorite footage of Sarah Palin can be found on YouTube. No, it's not the fancy pageant walkin'. It's the flute playin', you betcha! The one where she looks like her eyes are going to pop out of her head when she's holding the extended notes. Beverage came out of my nose when I read what some well-intended person had written in the comments: "Todd is a very lucky man".
As for McCain, I loved his "Sad Grampa" strategy on SNL. I think he is probably a decent man, and a very funny person, but I am NOT voting for him and Palin.
Strange choice by the Advocate. I'm no expert on American politics but I am a tax payer so I feel entitled to ask: What have George Bush and the Republican party done to benefit the city of Stamford? Answers on a postcard please to...
considering that the advocate publishes a voting guide that is not always just an apolitical look at the issues or whatever, I think its important to state who they endorse.
I am a faithful advocate subscriber but I wholeheartedly disagreed with their choice. Luckily, CT goes blue so its of little import what the southern CT tax break crowd wants...and of course, the country spoke loud and clear.
McCain may be a good guy and Palin may mean well, but their campaign was so full of blatant lies, that one would have to be a full time ...er...blogger...or very interested in politics, to sort it all out.
I hate bold liars, like the Bushies...if they float it enough it becomes part of consciousness and it must be true...and experience is of less import to me than actual issues, of which Palin represented the views of the extreme fringe of fundamentalists in this country.
It may be unseemly to look at the VP as the possible president, but when youve got an older guy who wouldnt release his medical records widely and who has had a deadly form of cancer etc...you put it on the table.
Sorry to you folks who think that you are losing out taxwise or that we are less safe, but as far as I can see int he first few days of this thing, most of us will get a tax CUT and those of you who make over 150-200 grand will maybe pay a couple grand more per year...for our schools and the war and the police department...and all that other socialist stuff!
And we will sooner rather than later, have a solid date ot start redelpoying our troops out of Iraq and back to afghanistan to finish up there and hopefully pull back to our own shores and make us safer at home!!!
I feel better already. It remains t be seen, but McCain has little interest in the economy and would continue the same in Iraq with possible expansion.
There is no victory in this thing...no winning...just tyring to get out with as little death as possible ane letting them try to put it back together, hopefully not as bad as before...but you dont force democracy on anyone. It cant work...we lost that war before we hit baghdad.
So, lets move on...the advocate was wrong, alot of people in FC were wrong, if this comment section is any indicaiton. But The people spoke big time.
Im behind Obama 100%. He wasnt my favorite going into this thing, but he is now my president. and just that I dont want to spit on the TV screen when they say he wants to address the nation is a majort plus to me personally.
Still and advocate fan!! Always a democrat!
Probably a socialist, if that means paying taxes for the good of the society to have roads, schools, and firehouses and stuff...OK...Guilty!
Palin is fine. The irrational attacks on her baby from the start showed you that this was not your normal attack, the left wanted to destroy her as they will want to destroy any minority or female Republican.
Post a Comment