Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Dallas Morning News Endorses First Democrat in 75 Years

Yes, before WWII. You get a lot of Republican leaning publications endorse Hillary Clinton for their first Democrat since 1964. That's because Goldwater was the last time the GOP nominated a candidate who even many Republicans found dangerous.

To be sure, Goldwater while dangerous was much better qualified than Trump.

Now you have the Dallas Morning News endorsing their first Democrat since before WWII.

The Dallas Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat since before World War II, but on Wednesday the Texas newspaper backed Hillary Clinton.

“We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

"We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.”

"The newspaper praised Clinton’s tenure as a senator and secretary of State."

“Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest,” the editorial board writes. “It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton."

Meanwhile, there's another Bushie for Hillary and he's saying it's not enough for Republicans not to vote for Trump; they must vote for his opponent. 

"ANOTHER FORMER BUSHIE BACKS CLINTON: James Glassman, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in the George W. Bush administration, tells fellow Republicans that backing Clinton is the right thing to do:

"If you think Mr. Trump is so lacking in experience and judgment that he shouldn’t have his finger on the nuclear trigger, then you are saying he is not just a bad candidate; you are saying he is a threat to the nation. You have an obligation to defeat him, no matter what you think of Mrs. Clinton….if you really think that Mr. Trump is a threat to your country, the right thing to do is to take the next step. Don’t just say you won’t votefor him. Vote against him."

As for Republican endorsements, Bob Corker sure gave Trump a great vote of confidence on Morning Joe this morning.

"Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spent the majority of his interview Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" dodging multiple questions about whether his party's presidential nominee Donald Trump is prepared to tackle the job of commander in chief."

"After co-host Mika Brzezinski asked the Senate Foreign Relations chairman to offer thoughts about the latest reports about the United States' payments to Iran earlier this year, her co-host Mike Barnicle followed up with a question teasing out the Commander in Chief Forum set for later in the evening on both NBC and MSNBC."

Read more:

All Corker could come up with is that he hasn't heard enough from either candidate on what they will do in Syria, etc. That's sort of saying that 'Both candidates need to give us more information on their health' ignoring that Hillary already has released a normal amount of information while Trump released a gag letter that sounded like it was from himself.

But even Corker can't say with a straight face he thinks Trump is qualified to be Commander in Chief. Yet he says we should vote for him.

"Can you explain to us why you think Donald Trump would be a better commander in chief than Hillary Clinton?" Barnicle asked.

Corker, whose name was once floated as a potential running mate for Trump, responded that he "didn't come on the program to talk about politics."

"I think that you know you asked me to come on to talk about public policy," Corker said. "I will say in general look the foreign policy establishment in Washington does need a shakeup. I mean if we look back over the last 16 years there have been a lot of mistakes made in both directions. And it's created a lot of instability around the world."

Referring to Trump, Corker added, "So it appears to me that the candidate yesterday with numbers of people backing him from the foreign policy establishment is evolving. And again, it's up to you and others to make the assessment you just made."

"Co-host Willie Geist, sensing an opportunity to drill down deeper into Corker's thoughts about Trump, asked about whether Trump has shared with him any more particulars of his plan to defeat the Islamic State. On Tuesday, Trump said that he would give his generals and national security team 30 days to come up with a plan to "soundly and quickly" defeat the terrorist group."

"No I have not had discussions with Mr. Trump or Secretary Clinton either, their strategy as it relates to ISIS," Corker responded.

"Asked whether the plan sounded good to him, Corker remarked, "Well again, I haven't heard either candidate be very crisp as it relates to dealing with ISIS. Nor have I heard either candidate be very crisp as it relates to dealing with our fiscal issues, our entitlement issues or anything else. So again, I know that because I'm a Republican and I'm here in front of you, you want to slant this in a particular direction."

Geist responded, "No, I'm not."

"In general, and I don't mean that to be offensive. But in general I haven't heard a lot of crispness as it relates to the policies that really affect our nation ... from anyone," Corker said.

"Donald Trump is the candidate that you're supporting. That's why I'm asking you about him," Geist responded, asking whether Trump's statements about what he would do about ISIL concern him as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

Read more:

Right I haven't discussed it with either candidate(though I'm supporting Donald Trump).

Something he's really 'hiding under a bushel' as the New Testament puts it.

No comments:

Post a Comment