If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC Chicago)   Chicago Tribune endorses a Democrat for President for only the 2nd time in its 160 years of existence. The first time? 2008   (nbcchicago.com) divider line 67
    More: Interesting, Democrat Party, Chicago Tribune, executive directors, obama, U.S. President Barack Obama, UC Santa Barbara, existence  
•       •       •

1172 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 01:46:41 AM
 
2012-10-27 08:42:16 AM
That liberal rag will endorse anyone. Ever since they moved to the internet they became NINOs (newspapers in name only)
 
2012-10-27 09:16:32 AM
Your point is?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-27 09:26:15 AM

Makh: That liberal rag will endorse anyone. Ever since they moved to the internet they became NINOs (newspapers in name only)


You can tell they are liberal because they endorsed a Democrat not once but twice in 160 years.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-27 09:39:52 AM
Every Democrat they endorsed has won. I wouldn't want to be Romney today.

Actually I would love to be Romney because I have a 1/3 chance of becoming supreme ruler of the free world and a 2/3 chance of being rich and bored.
 
2012-10-27 09:58:12 AM
Shocking they would endorse someone from their home town. Just out of curiosity, has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement? I can't think of an Dems from Chicago who ran for President other than Obama.
 
2012-10-27 10:08:10 AM
Obama is going to be in history books for thousands of years. We all know this. No one wants to be mentioned derisively in the student guides to Ancient North American History that the insect overlord people will have to read in high school.
 
2012-10-27 10:10:59 AM
That's just because they're black.
 
2012-10-27 10:14:28 AM
I wonder what Col. McCormick would think.
 
2012-10-27 10:15:49 AM

DamnYankees: has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement?


Adlai Stevenson, while not from Chicago as such did run as a candidate from Illinois, and the Tribune didn't endorse him in 52.
 
2012-10-27 10:16:25 AM

ZAZ: Every Democrat they endorsed has won. I wouldn't want to be Romney today.

Actually I would love to be Romney because I have a 1/3 chance of becoming supreme ruler of the free world and a 2/3 chance of being rich and bored.


Yes, but you would have to give up alcohol and caffeine. I don't think I can handle the world without those.
 
2012-10-27 10:17:00 AM

WhyteRaven74: DamnYankees: has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement?

Adlai Stevenson, while not from Chicago as such did run as a candidate from Illinois, and the Tribune didn't endorse him in 52.


You can't run against the Supreme Allied Commander and expect to win. Come on, now.
 
2012-10-27 10:17:01 AM
And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.
 
2012-10-27 10:20:02 AM

Makh: That liberal rag will endorse anyone. Ever since they moved to the internet they became NINOs (newspapers in name only)


Yeah, one of the best things about that liberal rag is how 80% of their editorial writers are a part of the conservative network (like Krauthammer...though I do like Steve Chapman, as he is at least a reasonable republican). And don't forget that their page 2 author is John Kass, who is for all practical purposes the most read (due to occupying the coveted page 2 spot on a major city newspaper) Tea Party writer today.

//oh, Mike Royko, look what they've done
 
2012-10-27 10:20:28 AM

DamnYankees: Shocking they would endorse someone from their home town.


While not technically his home town... who did the Salt Lake City paper endorse?
 
2012-10-27 10:22:34 AM

DamnYankees: Shocking they would endorse someone from their home town.


So is this Chicago, Hawaii, or Chicago, Kenya?
 
2012-10-27 10:23:19 AM

ModernLuddite: Obama is going to be in history books for thousands of years. We all know this. No one wants to be mentioned derisively in the student guides to Ancient North American History that the insect overlord people will have to read in high school.


It'll go in the civil rights section about the first black president and how residual racism almost brought the country to a standstill during his tenure. Many Americans weren't quite ready for a black president, but this was the last gasp of the old racist views.

Republicans and Teabaggers will not be presented as the good guys, even twenty years from now.
 
jgi
2012-10-27 10:23:55 AM

WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.


How could you not endorse Eisenhower? He was the last good Republican president.
 
2012-10-27 10:24:59 AM

WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.


Yeah, but going against Ike would be like going against George Washington. Adlai was a sacrifice both times.

The tribune just endorsed their home-town guy.
 
2012-10-27 10:26:53 AM
Someone else with a brain. Maybe the world isn't going to hell.
 
2012-10-27 10:36:04 AM

snowshovel: And don't forget that their page 2 author is John Kass


That man is so farking annoying. He thinks he's Royko and tries to tell those silly Roykoesque Chicago stories but damn, he's an idiot and always seems to get it wrong somehow. I don't know how people can read his drivel day after day.
 
2012-10-27 10:37:23 AM
They finally sold the Cubs too. They're wising up in their old age.
 
2012-10-27 10:39:19 AM

jgi: WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.

How could you not endorse Eisenhower? He was the last good Republican president.


Under Ike's purview, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president in Iran to install the Shah. Ike began our involvement in Vietnam. His main accomplishment seems to be his warning, as he left office, against the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, something he did nothing about when he was actually in power. Admittedly, I'd rather have him than any of the Republicans (and most of the Democrats) in office since, but he was a relatively weak president, especially compared to FDR.
 
2012-10-27 10:40:01 AM

jgi: WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.

How could you not endorse Eisenhower? He was the last good Republican president.


He wasn't so bad, as Republicans go, despite knuckling under at first to McCarthy. My father, a career army officer for 40 years, was a great admirer of Eisenhower and voted for him twice. However, my father also despised Nixon and voted against him at every (other) opportuinity. He even saw the light after he retired and voted for McGovern. And he loathed Reagan. Republicans have changed. I think if he were alive today, Eisenhower -- who was not a particularly political person when he in the military -- would think long and hard about becoming involved with the modern GOP.
 
2012-10-27 10:42:13 AM

jgi: WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.

How could you not endorse Eisenhower? He was the last good Republican president.


Until Obama, who is arguably the best Republican president since TR.
 
2012-10-27 10:51:03 AM

MisterBill: jgi: WhyteRaven74: And they didn't endorse him in 56 either. Elections of 52 and 56 were rather interesting as it was the same two candidates each time, Stevenson for the Democrats and Eisenhower for the GOP.

How could you not endorse Eisenhower? He was the last good Republican president.

Under Ike's purview, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president in Iran to install the Shah. Ike began our involvement in Vietnam. His main accomplishment seems to be his warning, as he left office, against the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, something he did nothing about when he was actually in power. Admittedly, I'd rather have him than any of the Republicans (and most of the Democrats) in office since, but he was a relatively weak president, especially compared to FDR.


He was also the first president to get caught openly lying to the press, when he categorically denied the Soviet Union's claim that they had brought down a U2 spy plane in their airspace.
 
2012-10-27 10:51:23 AM
Let's hope their coverage of the riots on Nov.7 are equally enthusiastic.
 
2012-10-27 11:01:56 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Let's hope their coverage of the riots on Nov.7 are equally enthusiastic.


Ah.........Grant Park, '68...........good times, good times
 
2012-10-27 11:04:00 AM

DamnYankees: Shocking they would endorse someone from their home town. Just out of curiosity, has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement? I can't think of an Dems from Chicago who ran for President other than Obama.


Conversely, the Salt Lake Tribune, has already endorsed Obama.
 
2012-10-27 11:15:49 AM

kevinatilusa: DamnYankees: Shocking they would endorse someone from their home town. Just out of curiosity, has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement? I can't think of an Dems from Chicago who ran for President other than Obama.

Conversely, the Salt Lake Tribune, has already endorsed Obama.


Shhhh, don't confuse the DERP with facts
 
2012-10-27 11:16:15 AM
once you go black...-Chicago Tribune
 
2012-10-27 11:28:03 AM

MrBallou: ModernLuddite: Obama is going to be in history books for thousands of years. We all know this. No one wants to be mentioned derisively in the student guides to Ancient North American History that the insect overlord people will have to read in high school.

It'll go in the civil rights section about the first black president and how residual racism almost brought the country to a standstill during his tenure. Many Americans weren't quite ready for a black president, but this was the last gasp of the old racist views.

Republicans and Teabaggers will not be presented as the good guys, even twenty years from now.


How will the future view Libya.
 
2012-10-27 11:28:18 AM
Not a Democrat...but, I honestly cannot understand how ANYONE could endorse Mitt Romney.

And, it's not just that Mittens won't explain why he should replace the current president. That's part of it, certainly...but, for years we've heard about how secretive Barack Obama supposedly is. But, these same voices don't seem to care that Romney won't disclose his tax returns. I suppose they assume that his school records don't matter because he's white (not joking about that, by the way -- have school records mattered for ANY presidential candidate until Obama?).

But, seriously, Romney is orders of magnitude more secretive than Obama. So, why aren't the Fox/Breitbart/Freeper types demanding documentary satisfaction from Mitt Romney? Why?
 
2012-10-27 11:29:01 AM

Nemo's Brother: MrBallou: ModernLuddite: Obama is going to be in history books for thousands of years. We all know this. No one wants to be mentioned derisively in the student guides to Ancient North American History that the insect overlord people will have to read in high school.

It'll go in the civil rights section about the first black president and how residual racism almost brought the country to a standstill during his tenure. Many Americans weren't quite ready for a black president, but this was the last gasp of the old racist views.

Republicans and Teabaggers will not be presented as the good guys, even twenty years from now.

How will the future view Libya.


How do you mean?

Be specific.
 
2012-10-27 11:30:46 AM
They endorsed Hoover in '32?
 
2012-10-27 11:37:21 AM

thornhill: They endorsed Hoover in '32?


Yes.

Just as they did in 1928.

Here's a list for you:
2008: Obama
2004: Bush
2000: Bush
1996: Dole
1992: Bush
1988: Bush
1984: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1976: Ford
1972: Nixon
1968: Nixon
1964: Goldwater
1960: Nixon
1956: Eisenhower
1952: Eisenhower (though Col. McCormick wanted Gen. MacArthur more)
1948: Dewey
1944: Dewey
1940: Willkie
1936: Landon
1932: Hoover
1928: Hoover
1924: Coolidge
1920: Harding
1916: Hughes
1912: Roosevelt (as a Progressive Party candidate, though a former Republican)
1908: Taft
1904: Roosevelt
1900: McKinley
1896: McKinley
1892: Harrison
1888: Harrison
1884: Blaine
1880: Garfield
1876: Hayes
1872: Greeley (a Liberal Republican co-nominated by the Democrats; Greeley was a founder of the Republican Party in the 1850s and briefly broke with the party over corruption in the Grant Administration)
1868: Grant
1864: Lincoln
1860: Lincoln
1856: Fremont
 
2012-10-27 11:38:13 AM
I'm actually surprised they didn't endorse Kennedy. Illinois (especially Chicago) put him over the top in that election.
 
2012-10-27 11:39:58 AM

Aar1012: I'm actually surprised they didn't endorse Kennedy. Illinois (especially Chicago) put him over the top in that election.


Why would you think that?

They endorsed Nixon in 1960.
 
2012-10-27 11:42:26 AM
Also, why does Fark use the term "Democrat Party" when listing this link?

Is Fark staffed by morons who don't realize there's no such thing as a "Democrat Party" in the United States?
 
2012-10-27 11:50:08 AM

Nemo's Brother: MrBallou: ModernLuddite: Obama is going to be in history books for thousands of years. We all know this. No one wants to be mentioned derisively in the student guides to Ancient North American History that the insect overlord people will have to read in high school.

It'll go in the civil rights section about the first black president and how residual racism almost brought the country to a standstill during his tenure. Many Americans weren't quite ready for a black president, but this was the last gasp of the old racist views.

Republicans and Teabaggers will not be presented as the good guys, even twenty years from now.

How will the future view Libya.


Much like we now view the loss of 241 Marines in Beirut during Reagan's term, I would imagine - a footnote.
 
2012-10-27 11:55:02 AM

eraser8: Also, why does Fark use the term "Democrat Party" when listing this link?

Is Fark staffed by morons who don't realize there's no such thing as a "Democrat Party" in the United States?


No, it's the secret Right Wing Illuminati tha/.... 09)*&^%&%$^.....
 
2012-10-27 11:56:46 AM

eraser8: Yes.

Just as they did in 1928.

Here's a list for you:


Well, in '28 Hoover was far and away a better candidate than Al Smith. He had brilliant led the post-WWI relief effort. Even FDR said he thought Hoover would make a good President.

But after the crash and as unemployment was skyrocketing, he argued that there was still good money to be made in selling apples on the street -- that's what unemployed people should do instead of asking for government intervention.

What's kinda crazy, is that a lot of the things Hoover pushed current day Republicans are still advocating, such as that government should stop providing aid to low income and the poor, and leave that to Churches and charities because they know how to do that better, and that we should be worshipping the gold standard.
 
2012-10-27 12:03:31 PM

thornhill: What's kinda crazy, is that a lot of the things Hoover pushed current day Republicans are still advocating, such as that government should stop providing aid to low income and the poor, and leave that to Churches and charities because they know how to do that better


What's sad is that Republicans don't understand that the reason we have a government safety net isn't because somebody had the bright idea to make government bigger...it's because we tried leaving help to churches and charities and they were found to be woefully inadequate.
 
2012-10-27 12:15:01 PM

WhyteRaven74: DamnYankees: has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement?

Adlai Stevenson, while not from Chicago as such did run as a candidate from Illinois, and the Tribune didn't endorse him in 52.


That's the thing about Illinois. You're from Chicago, or you're from downstate and don't count.
 
2012-10-27 12:37:33 PM

Mr. Breeze: WhyteRaven74: DamnYankees: has any Democratic politician from Chicago every run for President before who failed to get their endorsement?

Adlai Stevenson, while not from Chicago as such did run as a candidate from Illinois, and the Tribune didn't endorse him in 52.

That's the thing about Illinois. You're from Chicago, or you're from downstate and don't count.


Or the cornfields west of Chicago, which is effectively Iowa.
 
2012-10-27 12:38:00 PM

eraser8: Not a Democrat...but, I honestly cannot understand how ANYONE could endorse Mitt Romney.

And, it's not just that Mittens won't explain why he should replace the current president. That's part of it, certainly...but, for years we've heard about how secretive Barack Obama supposedly is. But, these same voices don't seem to care that Romney won't disclose his tax returns. I suppose they assume that his school records don't matter because he's white (not joking about that, by the way -- have school records mattered for ANY presidential candidate until Obama?).

But, seriously, Romney is orders of magnitude more secretive than Obama. So, why aren't the Fox/Breitbart/Freeper types demanding documentary satisfaction from Mitt Romney? Why?




somewhat in the same line of Romney's secrecy, I generally just wonder how Romney supporters deal with his changing positions? Couple his secrecy and his hard to pindown positions and you have a composite of a really untrustworthy person... yet they seem to ignore it. Hell, they don't even try to make excuses for Romney, they just try to debate semantics with Obama's position.
 
2012-10-27 12:46:18 PM
The editorial staff will be the first to go when Murdoch buys the Trib.
 
2012-10-27 12:50:52 PM

snowshovel: Makh: That liberal rag will endorse anyone. Ever since they moved to the internet they became NINOs (newspapers in name only)

Yeah, one of the best things about that liberal rag is how 80% of their editorial writers are a part of the conservative network (like Krauthammer...though I do like Steve Chapman, as he is at least a reasonable republican). And don't forget that their page 2 author is John Kass, who is for all practical purposes the most read (due to occupying the coveted page 2 spot on a major city newspaper) Tea Party writer today.

//oh, Mike Royko, look what they've done


Don't forget torture apologist Marc Theissen!
 
2012-10-27 12:57:55 PM
The president has campaigned on a familiar call to tax "millionaires and billionaires." Pretending that taxing the rich will achieve anything meaningful is a deceptive argument. Even if Obama's entire tax plan was enacted, it would reduce our annual federal deficit by about ... one-tenth.

*rolls eyes*

Wow, the Trib really doesn't want to endorse Obama again but Mitt Romney is really just that bad a candidate.

Good news... for Obama.
 
2012-10-27 01:05:53 PM
It bothers me to see a paper endorse anyone. It's kind of hard to maintain the illusion of neutrality after that.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report