E&P: "Daily Endorsement Tally: Kerry Picks up 22 Papers, Owns Huge Lead"

[Tesibria]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000673213

NEW YORK Senator John Kerry picked up a raft of newspaper endorsements on Sunday, widening his lead over President George W. Bush in this area.

Kerry gained the editorial backing of at least 22 papers, with Bush winning the support of just six that we know of, giving Kerry the lead by 37-19 in E&P's exclusive tally. He has many more large papers on his side, maintaining his "circulation edge" at about 4-1: approximately 8 million to 2 million (we will post a complete tally later today).

Among his new supporters were three papers that had backed Bush in 2000: the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado and the Daily-Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill.

However, Bush did pick up the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune. the Indianapolis Star and The Dallas Morning News in his home state.

Among the papers endorsing Kerry today were newspapers in key swing states: The Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Daytona Beach News Journal and Bradenton Herald in Florida; the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in Minnesota; the Daily Camera in Colorado, and the Dayton Daily News and Akron Beacon-Journal in Ohio.

....

Many of the editorials backing Kerry denounced the incumbent in unusually harsh language. The Miami Herald accused Bush of "narrow partisanship." Up the coast, the Daytona paper cited his "embarrassing performance." The Sacramento Bee said, "The nation has paid a steep price for Bush's arrogance - mounting deficits and debt at home, loss of standing and effectiveness abroad...." For The New York Times, his presidency has simply been "disastrous."

In supporting Bush, the York Daily Record nevertheless raised a concern: "We hope President Bush will renew his commitment to compassionate conservatism on domestic issues. The war on terrorism should be no excuse to impose a hard-line conservative agenda on such a closely divided citizenry."

Th Indianapolis Star called the two candidates "unsatisfying" and The Chicago Tribune, in backing Bush, also seemed a bit torn: "There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates."

[StupidFOX]

1. Nice to see some backbone from the media

Finally

[acmavm]

2. Well, this reality is pretty hard to ignore since it's easy to prove. The

'media' deserve no credit for writing about this. It is what it is. If they tried to spin it in another direction, which a lot of the would if they could (and some probably will), they'd be laughed right out of town.

The media has been operating on the mistaken belief that ALL Americans have the stunted intellectual development of bush* supporters. They are finding out now that that is not the case.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Pay closer attention to any difference from their endorsements in 2000

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Winston-Salem Journal declined to re-endorse shrub.

but neither did it endorse Kerry. So that's one GOP vote "staying home".

[Cha]

3. "renew his commitment to

compassionate conservatism on domestic issues"..

:wtf: are they sniffing? That was rove plan .."divisiveness"..and that was just in the first four years..how are they gonna get nicer?

Answer..they ain't ..for one thing ..they aren't getting another chance.

I'd like to know the full back story on some of these bush endorsements..as in ..just how much are they selling their souls to the devil for?

[Judi Lynn]

4. If it's of any use, I did hear an editor of the Chicago Tribune on C-Span

this morning who said the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Republican Presidents every time since 1872, if I "got it" correctly.

That should take some importance out of the claim of the Chicago Tribune backing for ANY Republican candidate. They're not completely objective!

Something really great to learn from your article:

"Among his new supporters were three papers that had backed Bush in 2000."

[MasonJar]

11. There is no chance that Illinois is going for Bush, so sc__w the

Chicago Tribune, if they are going to endorse an idiot just because he is a Pug.

[aquart]

13. They didn't seem too enthused about it, actually.

[The Zanti Regent]

32. Will the Chicago Fibune be STUPID ENOUGH to endorse Keyes?

Let's see them try to rationalize THAT!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

5. Murdoch owns the Tribune. There must be a lot of po'd people in Chicago.

It's a Dem town. I used to live there and would read both the Trib and the Sun Times but switched over more to the Times after Murdoch bought it. Royko quit the Trib and went over to the Sun Times when Murdoch bought it and wrote a scathing article about Murdoch.

It will be interesting to see what sort of letters they get after this endorsement.

[Ediacara]

9. Aparently

The Tribune hasn't endorsed a Democrat since 1872.

I suspect they'll get a raft of letters, but I doubt the endorsement will actually be anything more than a giggle.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. "Endorsed every repug candidate since 1872..."

I would love to read their endorsement of Hoover in '32.

[Tesibria]

10. Yeah - but we're used to it

Everyone knows that the Trib is conservative -- and that they ALWAYS endorse the Republican candidate.

[WCGreen]

12. How much does the Trib's influence spill into WI?

From not being there, I can see that the Chicago market must have tremendous influence on southern Wisconson, but are those folks fiercely independent of Chicago or are they part of the Chicago Sprawl? Where does Milwaukee's influence begin and Chitowns end?

[Tesibria]

14. not sure, actually

... i imagine that it has some -- with the republican leaning counties.

It does NOT up around Milwaukee -- they go for the Journal-Sentinel

[LTR]

18. Both papers are widely available up here

But not many people really read them except for Cubs and Bears fans.

It's mostly the Journal-Sentinel here.

[trueblew]

35. Tribune readers should call local advertisers

and let them know their displeasure with the Tribune supporting repubs for the past 100 years.

[Lizzie Borden]

38. Inthe Madison area...

nobody pays any attention to the Trbune.

[LTR]

16. Murdoch doesn't own either paper in Chicago

Though he briefly owned the Sun-Times in the 80's. Hollinger is the current owner. They also own quite a few suburban papers around Chicago.

The Tribune is owned by it's own media company, which also owns other newspapers and TV and radio stations as well (including WGN). Also owns a stake in the WB network.

[sundancekid]

25. right you are ... and the Tribune Co. owns the LA Times now since its

merger with Times Mirror back in 2000-2001 time frame ...

http://money.cnn.com/2000/03/13/deals/tribune/

Wonder what the LA Times will do on its endorsement now????

[Itchinjim]

24. Actually, the Trib is the flagship of

the Chicago Tribune Co. which owns WGN among other newspapers and radio and TV stations. They are not owned by Murdoch, The Sun Times however, was. Mike Royko left the Sun-Times after Murdoch bought it. Royko was one of my favorite columnists. Mike must be rolling in his grave now that John Kass an extreme RW shill has replaced him. I quit reading the Trib because of this ass hat.

[Ediacara]

6. Is there a list on that site?

In addition to those listed, the Arizona Republic and Spokane Spokesman-Review endorsed Bush today, although the S-R was did so begrudgingly. The San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News went for Kerry.

[Tesibria]

not yet

but they promised one for later today.

we have one going re: Kerry Endorsements -- no comparison yet.

The Kerry list is at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=79518&mesg_id=79518

[Steelangel]

7. Excellent!

[HawkerHurricane]

15. Can Kerry be the first Dem since 1964...

to win a majority of the newspaper endorsements since 1964? In the past century, the Democrats have only gotten the majority of endorsements 3 times... 1904 (get that madman, Roosevelt, out of office!), 1932 (anything is better than Hoover) and 1964 (keep that madman Goldwater out of office!).

[Tesibria]

17. well -- to date, Kerry is NAILING it

... especially if you consider distribution -- per the E&P, 4-1.

[StupidFOX]

20. lol, I love all those titles!

And just replace the old GOP names with Bush and they still make sense!

[HawkerHurricane]

22. ummm... Disagree...

Teddy Roosevelt was not a do nothing or a madman, but a true progressive/liberal, doing the right thing. A great man who the Republicans disowned... until he was safely dead and could be coopted to support thier failures.

[StupidFOX]

47. Very true, BUT

Although I completely agree that he was progressive and a big target for the old guard GOP (Taft), his jingoism and empire-building reflected a not-so-sunny part of America. That's what hit my mind when I saw the title.

[belle]

42. I did not know that. Interesting.

[Rochambeau]

19. Just a question. Can it have an impact on the election? n/t

[StupidFOX]

21. Given how close it is...

Yes

[trespam]

23. Vote with your wallets

Folks: If the paper or magazine that you subscribe to comes out on the wrong side of major issues like the Iraq war or the presidential election, cancel your subscription. Then go read it in a public library if you need to.

I cancelled my subscription to the Economist and New Republic because both came out in support of the Iraq war. One must have a diversity of views, but I'll find a way to acquire my diversity without supporting their wrong headed decisions. These organizations must understand that a significant percentage of the public will vote with their voice, their ballot, and their wallet.

If Bush somehows wins this election, a national strike is in order. Let the world know what we think.

[JDPriestly]

40. I quit the New Yorker

because it carried too many favorable articles about Bush in 2000 although I liked the magazine otherwise. How is the New Yorker poised in this campaign?

[ignatius 2]

45. Doesn't Seymour Hersh write for the New Yorker? Considering the

fantastic work he has done in breaking the prison scandal in Abu Gharib, I would think the New Yorker has reprieved itself.

[crossroads]

51. Many people vote for the newspapers endorsement...

:dem:

[hlthe2b]

26. An aside for fellow Coloradoans: Did the Boulder Daily Camera REALLY

endorse Bush* in 2000?????????????? Good God, I can't believe I missed that.

[LTR]

30. Afraid so

Here's the 2000 tally:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html

[Zorra]

27. Most people that can read would endorse Kerry, I would think.

Folks that can't read probably get most of their info from republican propaganda companies like Pox, Sinclair, or Tribune Co. TV, so they might vote for Bu$h.

[Nicholas_J]

28. Remember

It was Kerry's lead in newspaper endorsements that eventually caused the erosion of Deans lead. This in combination with the media having a relook at Deans Governorship, plus pointiing out statements Dean made in the past, but claimed he never made during the campaign that got the media replaying his past statements comparing them to his campaign rebuttals of having made those statements in the past. Just like the media has focused on Bush's flip flop on Osama bin Laden, the statement that he ever said Osama wasnt important is being replayed days after he made the statement. This is now starting to pass Kerry's Mary Cheney mention.
Repukes are furious about the Mary Cheney statements,because Bush's very weak response to the "choice or born" statement by Bush can have some serious negative effects among his evangelical base. They expected a firm statement about homosexualiity, but the question was posed in a way that Bush had not been prepared to answer. He was prepped for a sanctity of tradidional marriage question, not a question on the nature of homosexuality and he froze. It might appear to have hurt Kerry a bit, but not more than it will hurt Bush especially when evangelicals start questioning him about his I dont know answer. Gays in general know that Bush has it in for them, but a note of uncertainty has been placed into the minds of evangelicals about exactly how anti-gay Bush is. Kerry's reminder of Cheneys daughter raising a gay daughter will be a reminder to those who beleive it is environment(a bad one to the evangelical mind) that makes a homosexual and not genetics, or a combination of both. How the Cheneys raised a gay daughter in the heart of some of the most conservative real estate in the U.S. will be a problem for some evangelicals, probably more than it will be to any gays who might take exception to Kerry using Mary Cheneys sexual preference for political gain. After all Kerry did not state that Mary Cheneys sexual preference was something negative or bad. Most liberals know this; But no matter how much the Cheneys support their daughter, they obviously do not want it to be in the forefront. After all, they ARE exploiting their daughters sexual preference by using he to raise support among a portion of the gay community that might lean towards Bush. In as much as the Bush campaign IS using Mary Cheneys sexual preference politically to their own ends, if more quietly, it was not inappropriate for Kerry to use Mary Cheneys sexual preference as a reminder to Bush's overwhemingly anti-gay base.

[JusticeForAll]

31. Nicholas J, no gays take exception.

You wrote: "How the Cheneys raised a gay daughter in the heart of some of the most conservative real estate in the U.S. will be a problem for some evangelicals, probably more than it will be to any gays who might take exception to Kerry using Mary Cheneys sexual preference for political gain."

No gays take issue of Kerry and Edwards bringing Mary Cheney into BOTH debates. Frankly we appreciate there is a FAMILIAR FACE that is symbolic of whom the Republicans wish to target. There is no shame in bringing this to light at all - It goes like this: "Republicans, you want to discriminate? You are harming your FAMILY." By bringing this issue up WITH Mary Cheney included, PREVENTS the Republicans from using the "We're only trying to save our families" bullshit.

nice post, otherwise.

JusticeForALL

[Nicholas_J]

36. Some polls showed that some gays

took acception to Kerry and Edwards bringing it up, but then again, some gays support Bush.
The percentage of gays who might have taken exception is extremely small compared to the percentage of evangelicals likely to take exception to Mary Cheney, and to Bush not firmly stating the evangelical hardline about gays. A number of letters on Congress.org from evangelicals to Bush indicated concern about Bush's less than firm stance on the issue of whetther gays choose to be gay or are born gay, and such letters indicate that some evangelicals are not happy either with Bush's failure to state the evangelical hard line openly, along with Kerrys reminder to evangelicals that the Cheney family "made their daughter choose to be gay" It matters less what Kerry supporters think on this issue, than Bush's had core evangelical support, A dent in this support for Bush could be critical, as in politics, what it looks like is more important than what it is.
This also brings into focus Cheneys opposition to the amendment of the constitution which itse;f does not help Bush/Cheney among evangelicals, many of who, if not most, beleive that being gay is a choice and a bad one.

As in all life, ALL of any group does not support any one position.

[ignatius 2]

29. Are they finally seeing the handwriting on the wall, the death of free

speech if this facist regime manages to get 4 more years? Too bad many of them were so complacent and indeed complicit in banging the war drums.

[progressivedancer]

33. This is very frustrating

Everyone knows Chicago and surrounding suburbs are deep freaking blue, so why endorse this idiot?????????????? I am boycotting the Tribune. I already wrote them a scathing letter, I hope they get plenty more up their sorry assess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GGGGGGGGGRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, this is jacked up, just jacked up. I am too shocked and appalled as a Chicagoan to refute this endorsement with an impassioned and articulate argument, at least for now. BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!

[progressivedancer]

34. once more

once again, GGGGGGGGGGGGgggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Oak2004]

54. Really, are you surprised?

The Trib always goes Republican. I grew up in Chicago, and my father was a union man. I'd always hear him talk about how the Trib was a Republican paper and a scab paper (though I don't recall from my childhood of him talking of any specific instances of union busting). Our house was a Sun-Times only house, and he was emphatic about enforcing that.

I moved out of my family's house and left the state at the age of 17. I'm 47 years old now. So this is hardly "news".

[MrPrax]

37. Endorsements Might be damning...

Given the visciousness of the Bush Campaign and their 'ideologically' bound support base, receiving such a ringing endorsement from the Media might be seen as even more reason for everyone from 'trailer to church' to work even harder to defeat the 'traitors/unbelievers' come November.

I can see the Repukes, esp Rove, turning this 'defeat' into a 'victory' by simply pointing out this fact by their 'core'.

"22 major newspapers endorse him--Kerry...what does that tell you about how scared the Libr'uls are", declares Bush in his usual folksy blithering style, "come Nov 2, you can send them a message too" The rapturous applause by people who normally don't read anything more challenging than the TV listings.

Go Kerry...

[Nicholas_J]

39. Then again

Newspaper endorsements do a very good job of simplifying the differences between the toe candidates,and a very good job of removing all of the nuances that make a candidates positions difficult for the average voter to get around.

Most important,pointing out why Bush has failed so dismally in clear and succint terms is the best thing for Kerry.

[belle]

41. Good news kick!

[PermanentRevolution]

43. Funny how MSN spins it

Well, not funny. But you know what I mean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268250/

They print exerpts from SEVEN Bush endorsements vs. FOUR for Kerry and cram into three little paragraphs at the end that nine papers have switched to Kerry since 2000, and that thirteen new papers in swing states endorsed Kerry over the weekend.

[MADem]

44. If the paper is half way intelligent

...and the news articles contained therein have complete sentences, rational thought, and few spelling errors, there's really no other choice!!

[MADem]

49. FANTASTIC NEWS!!!! FLORIDA!! TAMPA GD TRIBUNE!!!!!!

THIS IS HUGE--They went with WEE WEE last time!

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html

W e find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and ``moderate man of mainstream convictions'' who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of ``nation building.''

We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush.

As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world.

[crossroads]

50. Why should they endorse a man who won't read?

Or can he even read?
:eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

52. global perils... gw bush hates the word global.

maybe he missed it in a spelling bee once.

[phlyphisher]

53. No surprise in Conservative Grand Rapids, Mich

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/109800894286870.xml|Grand Rapids Press Endorses Bush>

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. I don't have a lot of hope for the L.A. Times or the Orlando Sentinel.

Both are owned by the Chicago Tribune.

[Tesibria]

56. I heard that LA Times wasn't going to endorse anyone

that they haven't for a long time -- and that while they were considering doing so this year, per one of the multiple shows I watched last night, they've decided not to do so.

Note: list has been updated -- see link below.