Houston Chronicle Endorses....wait for it....

[TooTall]

I think the chronicle, one of the largest papers in the lone star state pretty much says it all:

For only the second time since native son LBJ in 1964, the Houston Chronicle has endorsed a democrat for the presidency.

The chronicle, which endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, stated the following:

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.

They really screwed up when they endorsed LBJ. Now they have screwed up again.

 

[Iceweasel]

They endorsed LBJ. Ho lee shit. Off the charts libs. They LOVE big government.

 

[jillian]

I think the chronicle, one of the largest papers in the lone star state pretty much says it all:

For only the second time since native son LBJ in 1964, the Houston Chronicle has endorsed a democrat for the presidency.

The chronicle, which endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, stated the following:

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.

They really screwed up when they endorsed LBJ. Now they have screwed up again.

they didn't screw up not endorsing goldwater.

and they're dead on right about the donald. in all seriousness, he's looking unhinged.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

 

[TooTall]

I think the chronicle, one of the largest papers in the lone star state pretty much says it all:

For only the second time since native son LBJ in 1964, the Houston Chronicle has endorsed a democrat for the presidency.

The chronicle, which endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, stated the following:

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.

They really screwed up when they endorsed LBJ. Now they have screwed up again.

they didn't screw up not endorsing goldwater.

and they're dead on right about the donald. in all seriousness, he's looking unhinged.

Remember Vietnam and LBJ?

 

[jillian]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

no worries. vote for dumb donald.

you're not college educated, you're white, christian and male and don't give a damn about anyone else. he's perfect for you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

no worries. vote for dumb donald.

you're not college educated, you're white, christian and male and don't give a damn about anyone else. he's perfect for you.

I am college educated. But I don't claim that means much given the likes of people like you getting their degrees (if you did).

 

[Statistikhengst]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

They did.

 

[jillian]

I think the chronicle, one of the largest papers in the lone star state pretty much says it all:

For only the second time since native son LBJ in 1964, the Houston Chronicle has endorsed a democrat for the presidency.

The chronicle, which endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, stated the following:

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.

They really screwed up when they endorsed LBJ. Now they have screwed up again.

they didn't screw up not endorsing goldwater.

and they're dead on right about the donald. in all seriousness, he's looking unhinged.

Remember Vietnam and LBJ?

again...as opposed to goldwater? and no one knew then that LBJ would escalate vietnam to that level. based on my recollection of history, i'm pretty sure he didn't run again because of it.

so you were saying?

again...the choice was LBJ or goldwater. goldwater was worse.

but nice deflect....do try to focus. they also endorsed romney. regan bush, etc.

 

[blackhawk]

Houston is one of the more liberal parts of the state the fact they endorsed Clinton is no real surprise. A quick addition they also endorsed Wendy Davis in the last Governors she lost in a landslide so that might give you an idea of how valuable newspaper endorsements are.

 

[jillian]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

They did.

no. they didn't.... i'm going to go out on a limb and say it was because of mccain's incompetence during the financial meltdown.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demag

I love how they like to get their ire up about not even face value stuff when the book is out on how deeply corrupt Hillary is. Frankly, Trumpians are coming out strong because of this blind eye nonsense.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

They did.

So, you're just into making sh** up these days, huh?

A half-century of Chronicle endorsements: 11 R, 2 D

 

[Statistikhengst]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

no worries. vote for dumb donald.

you're not college educated, you're white, christian and male and don't give a damn about anyone else. he's perfect for you.

I am college educated. But I don't claim that means much given the likes of people like you getting their degrees (if you did).

Correction:

Complete Houston Chronicle presidential endorsements since 1932:

1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 - FDR
1948 - Dewey
1952 - no one - refused to endorse
1956 - Eisenhower
1960 - Nixon
1964 - LBJ
1968, 1972 - Nixon
1976 - Ford
1980, 1984 - Reagan
1988, 1992 - Bush 41
1996 - Dole
2000, 2004 - Bush 43
2008 - Obama
2012 - Romney
2016 - Hillary Clinton

 

[jillian]

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demag

I love how they like to get their ire up about not even face value stuff when the book is out on how deeply corrupt Hillary is. Frankly, Trumpians are coming out strong because of this blind eye nonsense.

she isn't corrupt. that is the rightwingnut meme. otherwise, after 25 years of stalking her, you'd have gotten her. two years ago her approvals were at about 60%. then the wingers went after her just like Rep. McCarthy said (and his honesty cost him the speakership).

 

[Statistikhengst]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

They did.

So, you're just into making sh** up these days, huh?

A half-century of Chronicle endorsements: 11 R, 2 D

I just corrected the error, so go fuck yourself.

 

[jillian]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

no worries. vote for dumb donald.

you're not college educated, you're white, christian and male and don't give a damn about anyone else. he's perfect for you.

I am college educated. But I don't claim that means much given the likes of people like you getting their degrees (if you did).

Correction:

Complete Houston Chronicle presidential endorsements since 1932:

1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 - FDR
1948 - Dewey
1952 - no one - refused to endorse
1956 - Eisenhower
1960 - Nixon
1964 - LBJ
1968, 1972 - Nixon
1976 - Ford
1980, 1984 - Reagan
1988, 1992 - Bush 41
1996 - Dole
2000, 2004 - Bush 43
2008 - Obama
2012 - Romney
2016 - Hillary Clinton

thank you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.

Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demag

I love how they like to get their ire up about not even face value stuff when the book is out on how deeply corrupt Hillary is. Frankly, Trumpians are coming out strong because of this blind eye nonsense.

she isn't corrupt. that is the rightwingnut meme. otherwise, after 25 years of stalking her, you'd have gotten her. two years ago her approvals were at about 60%. then the wingers went after her just like Rep. McCarthy said (and his honesty cost him the speakership).

you can continue with your rightwingnut talking points now.

Corrupt as all hell.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

no worries. vote for dumb donald.

you're not college educated, you're white, christian and male and don't give a damn about anyone else. he's perfect for you.

I am college educated. But I don't claim that means much given the likes of people like you getting their degrees (if you did).

Correction:

Complete Houston Chronicle presidential endorsements since 1932:

1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 - FDR
1948 - Dewey
1952 - no one - refused to endorse
1956 - Eisenhower
1960 - Nixon
1964 - LBJ
1968, 1972 - Nixon
1976 - Ford
1980, 1984 - Reagan
1988, 1992 - Bush 41
1996 - Dole
2000, 2004 - Bush 43
2008 - Obama
2012 - Romney
2016 - Hillary Clinton

thank you.

De nada

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president.

Based on that, I'm sure they must've endorsed McCain over Obama.....



Who cares what these corporate rags endorse.

They did.

So, you're just into making sh** up these days, huh?

A half-century of Chronicle endorsements: 11 R, 2 D

I just corrected the error, so go fuck yourself.

Corrected after I called you out, ya did.