Monday, October 27, 2008

Ann Arbor News: No Endorsement for President

When this newspaper decides not to endorse a candidate in an election, it's usually because we believe neither is qualified for the office. In this year's presidential race, that's not the case. Both Barack Obama, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican, are qualified to be president.

Yet when we look at this pair, we see two seriously flawed candidates who have run very disappointing campaigns. And although it's possible that either man will turn out to make an excellent president, we find ourselves unable to work up sufficient enthusiasm to endorse either one.

Our political endorsements aren't really meant to tell people how to vote, but rather to add to the public discussion on important issues. In this race, some will surely see this lack of endorsement as a cop-out or a lack of courage. So be it. For us, it's simply a reflection of reality.

~Ann Arbor News Editorial

12 Comments:

At 10/27/2008 9:03 PM, Anonymous Ralph Short said...

On the one hand they say both are qualified but on the other they decide they are not worthy because of "disappointing campaigns". That is not a thoughtful editorial. I trust their circulation is decreasing.

 
At 10/27/2008 9:06 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

What a country. We live with the sure and certain knowledge that no matter who we elect, we will be OK. A lesser country with our politicos would have collapsed years ago.

 
At 10/27/2008 11:04 PM, Anonymous qt said...

On economics, I agree. Neither candidate is really stellar.

It is a case of looking for the lesser of 2 evils.

 
At 10/27/2008 11:17 PM, Blogger Andy said...

Surprising, considering Ann Arbor seems to be something like 80% for Obama.

 
At 10/27/2008 11:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If 80% of their readers are for Obama, it seems that they would endorse him for commercial reasons. And you would expect them to refuse to endorse McCain for fear of losing readers.

 
At 10/27/2008 11:39 PM, Anonymous jrich said...

If I were 5 years older, I would be "qualified" to be POTUS. Also, it's clear that they don't predict that either will be "an excellent president," only that "it's possible."

I'm shocked that a newspaper of any size would actually say something like this...especially if endorsing one candidate over the other may be commercially profitable as a comment above mentions. Strange days indeed.

 
At 10/27/2008 11:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Neither candidate is my first choice.

For me, I'm endorsing McCain, but it's not because I'm happy with him - it's more that I have zero confidence in Obama.

 
At 10/28/2008 3:46 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

When I'm voting for the lesser of two weevils, I always vote against the boll.

Nasty little basta-- What?

Eh?

Oh.

Never mind...

 
At 10/28/2008 4:02 AM, Blogger Arman said...

obh
You actually made a funny! It is good to lighten up

 
At 10/28/2008 7:44 AM, Blogger DB said...

I applaud the paper for abstaining. I trust a lot of the newspapers who have endorsed one candidate or another have only done so to get out in front of enthusiasm for a candidate stemming from the majority of their readers. I think the newspapers and media in general do a little too much editorializing to influence opinion.

Unfortunately, the "average" American voter is conditioned to shape his/her opinions based on soundbites and commentary without a serious evaluation the views, policies, and statements of a candidate taken in the appropriate context. Maybe I'm a cynic, but that's how I perceive it.

 
At 10/29/2008 1:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would anyone waste their time to vote for the "lesser of two evils"? Common sense shows that an individual vote makes no difference (unless there is a tie) and the only other reason for voting is some sort of psychological benefit associated with going to the polls. I dont see how one can derive such a benefit knowing that you are not supporting a your philosophical/ethical beliefs.

 
At 11/01/2008 8:53 PM, Anonymous David said...

In spite of being in a very liberal community, Ann Arbor news is owned by Advance Publications (a very conservative group), and endorsed George W. Bush in the last two elections.

General consensus among Ann Arborites is that if the election came down to a democrat vs. Satan himself, the newspaper would more likely declare a draw rather than endorse a democrat for the national election. I thought it was a rather pitiful attempt to weasel out of choosing between scorn of the public or the ownership, though I don't think it worked.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home