Absolutely! I was just reading about several papers that used to consistly endorse Republicans, endorsing Kerry this time.

.

When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know.

Blogic:

If you read the endorsements 2 things become very clear about the Bush Presidency: 1) there is no connection between the reality Bush paints in terms of the economy and Iraq and the world we live in and 2) Kerry presents an alternative because Bush has not kept the faith with the American people.

These were very identifiable in the debates between the candidates and are even clearer now.

Reply #3 By: CrispE - 10/26/2004 10:16:30 PM Blogic: If you read the endorsements 2 things become very clear about the Bush Presidency: 1) there is no connection between the reality Bush paints in terms of the economy

More BS. Go look at all the indicaters. Unemployment is down, stock market is up. What more do you people need to see that this is a falsehood?

You can wish all you want, blogic.

What this shows is how far out of touch the print media have become. We are such a country of ingrates, sometimes. Despite unprecedented trauma to our economy from the aftershocks of 9/11 and the bursting of the tech stock bubble which devastated a huge sector of our economy, not to mention the corporate collapses of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others, we have had a remarkable recovery, nothing short of miraculous, if you ask me. There's no effing way Kerry or anybody else could have cushioned the economy from the impact of all those factors any better and to think so is just Alice-in-Wonderland wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I'm just curious as to what the Democrats would call a GOOD economy?

Clinton ran on a strong economy in 1996 and the unemployment rate was higher than, the stock market lower, inflation higher, interest rates higher.

What exactly are the Democrats looking for in an economy? My main beef is the deficit which is a legitimate issue but Clinton didn't have the war on terror to fight. If you remove the increaed military budget and Iraq/Afghanistan spending, our deficit as a % of GDP is actually lower than it was in 1996.

In short, I am not sure what more the left wants.

In short, I am not sure what more the left wants.

99 for me and 1 for you.

That's what the left wants.

Take all the money from the rich (i.e. people that have it) and give it back in the form of entitlements and benefits so that everyone becomes a ward of the "state" and is then permanently indebted to the government.

That about sums it up.

That terpfan1980 gets an insightful from me. Succint & coherent.

Cheers,
Daiwa

What this shows is how far out of touch the print media have become. We are such a country of ingrates, sometimes. Despite unprecedented trauma to our economy from the aftershocks of 9/11 and the bursting of the tech stock bubble which devastated a huge sector of our economy, not to mention the corporate collapses of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others, we have had a remarkable recovery, nothing short of miraculous, if you ask me. There's no effing way Kerry or anybody else could have cushioned the economy from the impact of all those factors any better and to think so is just Alice-in-Wonderland wishful thinking.

Fair statement,but the recovery could have been more robust had the tax cuts been spread out more.

inflation higher, interest rates higher.

Thanks to Greenspan's lack of cooperation.as for unemployment, in good times workers can be more selective, therefore, unemployment in transit is higher.

The Washington Post,

It usually is non-commital.

Good note, Blogic.

Quite a few Florida papers have surprisingly endorsed Kerry.

Fair statement,but the recovery could have been more robust had the tax cuts been spread out more.

I appreciate the fair label, but to use a topical phrase: "No Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a game."

Cheers,
Daiwa

The fact that the papers have such a strong preference for Kerry tells you just how far outside the mainstream Bush is, and how negatively his policies have affected America.

It is not surprising that the newspapers are endorsing Kerry. In fact the credibility of the mainstream media has fallen because they fell for the Bush bait on the issue of WMDs in Iraq and the role they played as "embedded journalists" in the run up to the war and the capture of Bagdad.

In any case Kerry will emgerge victorious on Nov 2 and everyone likes a winner.

Reply #11 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/27/2004 2:05:45 AM The fact that the papers have such a strong preference for Kerry tells you just how far outside the mainstream Bush is, and how negatively his policies have affected America. It is not surprising that the newspapers are endorsing Kerry. In fact the credibility of the mainstream media has fallen because they fell for the Bush bait on the issue of WMDs in Iraq and the role they played as "embedded journalists" in the run up to the war and the capture of Bagdad. In any case Kerry will emgerge victorious on Nov 2 and everyone likes a winner

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. Electoral vote.com still has Bush ahead by 20 points.

When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know.

Well, the NY Times endorsed Republican Governor George Pataki in 2002.

Another poll out today confirming that Kerry leads among college educated voters and among whites earning $100,000+ a year. Even the rich people who stand to personally profit the most from the Bush tax cuts realize that they are unsustainable and bad policy. Talk about outside the mainstream:

"Strikingly, Bush leads Kerry in the poll among lower- and middle-income white voters, but trails his rival among whites earning at least $100,000 per year.
Bush also runs best among voters without college degrees, whereas Kerry leads not only among college-educated women (a traditional Democratic constituency), but among college-educated men — usually one of the electorate's most reliably Republican groups in the electorate."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll26oct26.story

Reply #14 By: David St. Hubbins (Anonymous) - 10/27/2004 11:39:25 AM Another poll out today confirming that Kerry leads among college educated voters and among whites earning $100,000+ a year. Even the rich people who stand to personally profit the most from the Bush tax cuts realize that they are unsustainable and bad policy. Talk about outside the mainstream: "Strikingly, Bush leads Kerry in the poll among lower- and middle-income white voters, but trails his rival among whites earning at least $100,000 per year. Bush also runs best among voters without college degrees, whereas Kerry leads not only among college-educated women (a traditional Democratic constituency), but among college-educated men — usually one of the electorate's most reliably Republican groups in the electorate." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll26oct26.story

Excuse me weren't you banned from this site? If so then, "Get the Hell out of here"!!!