‘New York Times’ Endorses Clinton, McCain
Perpetuating the stereotype that Florida is a sunnier, kinder and gentler colony of the “Big Apple”, the New York Times has chosen to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for the nominations of their respective parties on the eve of the Florida primary. As usual, the opinions of America’s paper of liberal record are well written, clear, and persuasive to the casual reader. It is unfortunate that the assumptions upon which their logic is based have so few facts to back them up.
The Times’ endorsement of Sen. Clinton was to be expected. The last true ’70’s liberal in the race is the one that is most in tune with the views of the Times’ publishers and editorial board. The Times’ is quite adamant in their reasoning, which will also be used in their endorsement of the Democrat nominee in the general election:
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two (Clinton and Obama). They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
It amazes me that left leaning individuals love to accuse conservatives of using “code” when it comes to issues such as race, but deny the obvious use of coded language when used by their own. The only issue that they are semi-clear on is their desire to withdraw from Iraq.
“More equitable taxation” is in reality a desire to raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, along with the desire to bring back to grand old days of 70% (or even 90%) top marginal rates. Of course we have to end all discussion of abolishing the death tax.
“More effective government spending” is the wish to raise entitlement spending while gutting our nation’s spending on national defense. While I have vehemently opposed Bush’s (and the GOP Congress’s) spendthrift ways, the gutting of defense spending under the first President Clinton necessitated the spending levels we now see.
“More concern for social issues” is yet one more plug for entitlement spending (including a single payer healthcare system) along with the desire to federalize issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which rightly belong with the states.
“A restoration of civil liberties” is merely the desire to transfer the rights of American citizens (including the franchise) to those that are here illegally or are enemies of our nation. I certainly don’t agree with the Bush “imperial presidency” or some of the administration’s tactics. I desperately hope that a new President will bring us back to a time when liberty was for all (who are legally here). However, the solutions of a President Clinton or President Obama would be disastrous to our nation’s security and economy.
As for the reference to “the politics of division” I can only chuckle. It is perfectly fine to attack evangelical Christians for their heartfelt beliefs (as the Times’ has done with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee) but to attack and ridicule those who oppose abortion or gay unions (to name only two issues) based on sincere religious belief is OK. Unfortunately we cannot read the minds of others, but it is perfectly fine to attack certain individuals of conscience by assuming that their motives are based on bigotry rather than faith. These messengers of the left are no better than a Sean Hannity who states that one cannot oppose the war in Iraq and still claim to be a conservative (I assume Quakers and Mennonites cannot be conservatives).
—————————————————————————————————-
It is the reasoning behind the endorsement of Sen. McCain that I find so bizarre. Given that the Times’ obviously views McCain as the “most liberal” of the remaining (viable) GOP candidates is, in all probability, the impetus behind their endorsement. Since they view the candidacy of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as being on life support, they figure to hitch their wagon to McCain (or to torpedo him). Their reasoning (when seriously examined) shows that the editorial board of the Times has no business weighing in on this race. Their understanding of conservatism and the Republican party is equivalent to our understanding of life in a distant galaxy.
Core to the endorsement of Sen. McCain is the Times’ belief that McCain “is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.” Since such an assumption has no basis in fact, one has to question the balance of their reasoning. The fact is that Bush never governed on behalf of this “fringe”, which is left-wing code for social conservatives (or evangelical Christians, which are actually a subset of socially conservative voters). President Bush has consistently pandered to social conservatives in order to win, and then retain, their loyalty. The group that Bush has governed on behalf of has been the largest members of the US Chamber of Commerce.
A true Reaganite, is pro-business by being a proponent of free markets. The corporatism of Bush wing of the party is free market only when it aids large corporations and is most assuredly as pro-”corporate welfare” as they are anti-entitlement (for the poor). Entitlements for the middle and upper classes and for business are a totally different matter.
Their reasoning for not backing Giuliani is suspect. Unfortunately we will never be able to test my thesis unless Giuliani somehow sweeps the Florida primary and does extremely well on Super Tuesday.
Their refusal to support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is sound. I think it has something to do with being from Massachusetts. This guy has held more positions on a given issue than the junior senator from his state.
While I am not a supporter of Huckabee’s, I refer you back to the previous section. The bigotry shown by left leaning publications like the Times towards certain people of faith can be compared to the racial views of a Klansman.
Not surprisingly, the Times feels that McCain should receive the greatest applause for the very stances that almost destroyed his campaign last year. It is despite his views on immigration that more and more conservatives are supporting McCain.
While the Times may love McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts, they seem incapable of understanding his reasoning. McCain wouldn’t have opposed the tax cuts if Congress (and Bush) had been able to exercise some restraint on non-defense spending.
It is the ideological left, and the non-ideological (and pandering) corporatist wing of the GOP that actually have to most to fear (and lose) under a McCain presidency. Perhaps that is why the New York Times chose to endorse him to begin with. There are far too many of us who will take a Times endorsement as a sign of betrayal by McCain.
G. A. Harrison is a lifelong Reaganite, former Republican Party officeholder, McCain supporter and editor of Delmarva Dealings and the Campaign Edge
cross posted at the Campaign Edge
Technorati Tags: 2008, politics, GOP, conservatism, liberalism, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, immigration, healthcare, fiscal policy, taxation, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani
Powered by ScribeFire.Sphere: Related Content
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment