WSJ Endorses Obama?

[Mink]

A declaration written by the Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama and the runaway train....... a good read

online.wsj.com/article/SB122539802263585317.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.

snipped>

But let's be frank. Something new is happening in America. It is the imminent arrival of a new liberal moment. History happens, it makes its turns, you hold on for dear life. Life moves.

A fitting end for a harem-scarem, rock-'em-sock-'em shakeup of a year -- one of tumbling inevitabilities, torn coalitions, striking new personalities.

Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." And so my beautiful election ends.

[jgaffney]

Here are some of the parts that Mink snipped out of the article:

It was a night during the Republican Convention in September, and two former U.S. senators, who had served with Mr. McCain for a combined 16 years, were having drinks in a hotel dining room. I told them I collected stories of senators who'd been cursed out by John McCain, and they laughed and told me of times they'd been the target of his wrath on the Senate floor.

The talk turned to presidents they had known, and why they had wanted the job. This one wanted it as the last item on his résumé, that one wanted it out of an inflated sense of personal destiny. Is that why Mr. McCain wants it? "No," said one, reflectively. "He wants to help the country." The other added, with almost an air of wonder, "He wants to make America stronger, he really does." And then they spoke, these two men who'd been bruised by him, of John McCain's honest patriotism.

Or, this one:

The size and dimension of the likely Democratic victory seem clear. A Democratic House with a bigger, more fervent Democratic majority; a Democratic Senate with the same, and possibly with a filibuster-breaking 60 seats; a new and popular Democratic president, elected by a few points or more; a Democratic base whose anger and hunger have built for eight years; Democratic activists and operatives hungry for business and action. What will this mix produce? A runaway train with no one to put on the brakes, to claim a mandate for slowing, no one to cry "Crossing ahead"? Democrats in Congress will move for innovation when much of the country hopes only for stability. Who will tell Congress of that rest of the nation? Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed trying to placate the innovators.

America enjoyed divided government most successfully recently from 1994 to 2000, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Newt Gingrich in effect running Congress. It wasn't so bad. In fact, it yielded a great deal, including sweeping reform of the welfare system, and balanced budgets.

This one's pretty good, too:

The past few months as the campaign unfolded, I listened for Mr. Obama to speak thoughtfully about the life issues, including abortion. Our last Democratic president knew what that issue was, and knew by nature how to speak of it. Bill Clinton famously said, over and over, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." The "rare" mattered. It set a tone, as presidents do, and made an important concession: You only want a medical practice to be rare when it isn't good. For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals' minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures. "That's above my pay grade." Friend, that is your pay grade, that's where the presidency lives, in issues like that.

So, the authoress, Peggy Noonan, concludes that a change from 8 years of Republican rule might be good for the country. However, Obama is not the best choice for that change. In addition, a Democrat Administration combined with a Democrat majority in the House and a fillibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate would not be good for the country. Go ahead, Mink, wish it into being. You might ask Dick Gephhardt and Tom Daschele how they felt after the 1994 midterm elections. The current Democrat Congress has approval ratings even lower than the President's. We should give them more power?

[Mink]

I don't see where Ms. Noonan sats Obama is not the best choice.
Although I snipped parts of the read, she does start off with a great rave of Obama's rise, hence the ending of an old era to a new liberal movement.

All in all, an encouraging word from WSJ for Obama.

The reason the Dems have that approval ratings is they don't have much of a majority and you know it.

[jgaffney]

Nov 2, 2008 23:39:22 GMT -5 Mink said:

The reason the Dems have that approval ratings is they don't have much of a majority and you know it.

Ah, Mink, still trying to put words in my mouth. If Obama is elected Tuesday, this promises to be an entertaining four years, if nothing else.

The reasons that the Democrats in Congress have such low approval ratings, in my opinion, are:

• They ran on a platform of ending the war in Iraq immediately by cutting off funding for the war. They didn't do that.
  
  
• They ran on a platform of impeaching Bush and Cheney. They didn't do that, either.
  
  
• They ran on a platform of cleaning up earmarks. They didn't do that.
  
  
• They ran on a platform of "the most ethical Congress in history." They didn't do that, either.
  
  
• They blasted the Republicans for not getting the budget resolutions done in time, passing a continuing resolution instead. Now, the Democrats are doing exactly the same thing.
  
  
• They had enough of a majority in the House to do pretty much anything they wanted. Instead, Pelosi squandered the opportunity by bringing in bills that splintered the Democrat majority, either failing on the issue or failing to get a veto-proof majority on a measure that the President already said he would veto.
  
  
• The Senate's rules of debate are different, and the Democrats did not have the majority required to squelch debate. However, again, Reid squandered the opportunity to bring up bills that would garner bipartisan support, and spent all his capital blaming it on the Republicans.

If the Democrats had leaders other than Pelosi and Reid, things would certainly be different. However, the deferral to the radical wings of the party ensures that any Democrat majority will be a farce.

[Mink]

Of course this is your opinion Gaffney and you have every right to it. I happen to disagree with you as the split in the Senate alone is 49/49 ( one Dem is Lieberman) with 2 Independents, so you see, hardly a majority.

The fact that the WSJ has such a write on Obama is not good for Mccain.

[jgaffney]

Nov 3, 2008 0:18:15 GMT -5 Mink said:

The fact that the WSJ has such a write on Obama is not good for Mccain.

And, my response is, "Don't take Peggy Noonan as a mandate." A constant stream of conservative arguments against an Obama administration will not be undone by one editorial. Especially a non-endorsement like this one. Or, maybe you can show me other WSJ op-eds supporting Obama?

[Mink]

There are many links in regards to the WSJ endorsing or very close to endorsing Obama.

www.pbs.org/vote2008/2008/10/ringing-endorsements.html

Ringing Endorsements


With all the celebrities, politicians, bloggers and even athletes constantly giving their opinions on the presidential race, do newspaper endorsements matter anymore?

The Chicago Tribune's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama was the first time in the paper's history that it had given its seal of approval to a Democrat. And the Wall Street Journal, which has traditionally not endorsed any political candidates (and hasn't endorsed anyone since Herbert Hoover) is rumored to be readying an editorial.

I don't need a newspaper to tell me who to vote for, but I just find it interesting when conservative papers ( or papers from red states) and conservatives have endorsed Obama.

[jgaffney]

That ringing you hear is in your ears.

[Mink]

No, it's in the papers.