Tag Archives: endorsement

The “Republican” Courier rides again

Posted on by

I‘ve said it before. I don’t normally read or consider Editorials published in newspapers because it is the view point of the non-working members of the paper and is usually expresses the view point of the owner or publisher of the paper. They are free to express a point of view of an issue or an election but sometimes they write some howlers not grounded in reality. The October 9th endorsement of John McCain for President is the Findlay Courier’s howler of the moment.

It starts out well enough:

We endorse John McCain for President of the United States.By the issues, here’s why:

Elect McCain

Then it is downhill from there.

First there is this

Energy: Like many Americans, McCain has undergone a complete change of heart regarding offshore drilling, as evidenced by the choice of running mate. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is strongly in favor of developing and using our domestic resources.

Oil companies hold about 5,500 offshore leases that are not being used. Oil refineries are already operating at maximum capacity in the United States, and no new refineries have been opened since 1976. And any effect on supply or price wouldn’t be felt for at least 10 years it takes to bring that oil to the market, if at all.

Then there is this:

Health care: McCain’s plan is one of his strongest policy proposals. He wants to replace the current tax deduction on employer-provided health insurance with a tax credit of $2,500 per person (or $5,000 per family). This would go to everyone, whether or not their employers offer health insurance, so more people could buy private insurance.

McCain’s health insurance plan will tax your health care benefits for the first time ever and pass those so-called credits to insurance providers. Some plan. He also wants to encourage people to purchase health insurance across state lines – like people do with fireworks, cigarettes, and liquor – and turn it into a “free market” like he did Wall Street and we know how that turned out. He also plans on cutting Medicaid to pay for his plan.

Then there is this:

Courts: McCain has promised to name “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court, or in other words, justices who would strictly interpret the law as written and intended. That’s as it should be.

So I wonder if that also means the Courier supports a return to slavery and treating women as the property of their husbands?

From the beginning, McCain seemed to comprehend far better than the Bush administration that Iraq was a huge project. He knew more troops were needed, and called for such long before the “surge” was implemented.

McCain’s military background is perhaps the greatest asset he brings to the presidency. He understands the principles on which this nation was founded and he’s utterly committed to America. He has a realistic view of nations like Russia and Iran, but also would use caution before pushing us into another war; he knows first-hand what wars do to our military. He has shown courage and fortitude, and would continue to do so as president.

Really? As for McCain being better than the current occupant of the White House about Iraq, both were left in the dust because Obama was correct about everything on Iraq and Afghanistan and the war started before January of 2007. Obama is so right on this issue that not only does the Bush administration admit it but so does senior commanders in area. McCain – and the Courier – seem to be the only one to think McCain is right.

Then toward the end of the editorial was the ultimate howler:

It’s worth pointing out that McCain lacks the negative baggage his opponent carries: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, ACORN, etc.

How about McCain’s involvement with the Council for World Freedom that was involved with the Iran-Contra deal (which included selling weapons to Iran) and Latin American death squads during his time on their board and how could the Courier ignore the Keating 5. How about his association with the anti-Catholic and antisemitic Pastor John Hagee? Then there is Sarah Palin’s association with the anti-American Alaska Independence Party. If associations matter then they missed the forest for the trees.

This is what happens when talking points are used to “support” an endorsement.

As a side note, back when I was a lad, The Courier was known as “The Republican Courier”. It had the name for decades and was a left over from the days when Findlay had newspapers that were strictly aligned with political parties of the day.

I think it was in the early 80’s, the owners of The Courier decided to drop “Republican” from its name because they were concerned people would be suspect of their journalistic objectivity. The actual news they print has always been, for the most point, objective, but it is clear, with this endorsement, that the owners are still shilling for the GOP.