Sunday, October 19, 2008


This weekend has been marked with numerous Obama endorsers (major newspapers, Colin Powell, among others), and each one has, in part contained explanations, some bordering on merciless, for why they could not endorse McCain, and in extremely unflattering terms.
While more conciliatory than most, here is the Washington Post's endorsement......"Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet’s ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party’s tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn’t come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America’s national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief."


Papa Giorgio said...


I do have to say this Kimba, having Powell on his cabinet (if Powell would do it) would make me feel a bit easier about Obama. If Bush had listened to Powell from the get-go, we would have had less deaths and problems. (Go in big and strong.) I also want to say that I doubt I will ever hear you say -- without any prompting of course -- that Joe Lieberman makes you feel a little easier about McCain.


Kim said...

No, but if McCain had the intelligence to put Mitt Romney on his ticket, I would feel pretty good about it, and it would have made it a real horse race.

I mean, how much intelligence did it take to see the voters number one concern this time around is the economy?

They are good with McCain on the military, and they would breathe a sigh of relief if Romney was in charge of the economy.

The only reason we put him on the ticket was his faith, and ability to carry Florida...because of his faith. Couldn't get it done.

Kim said...

Lieberman that is....apparently I couldn't even stand mentioning his name, I guess. Sort of similar to the conservatives who wished Powell had just shut his yap, I suppose.