So, I know that endorsements in presidential elections generally don’t mean that much. But I have to admit, of all of the endorsements that are offered up during campaign season, the one that matters most to me is the NY Times. Sure I know that the NY Times isn’t perfect, but to me it is still the paper of record and the only paper that is fit to be called, “the paper” (as in, “I am reading the paper.”). They just announced their endorsements. It appears that the reason that I like the New York Times so much could be because the editorial board and I think alike. For the Dems, they endorsed Hillary Clinton, for many of the same reasons that I support her.
On the Republican side, they endorse John McCain. Once again, they present pretty much the same sentiment that I feel about the candidates on the Republican side. I do appreciate John McCain’s approach to bipartisanship, particularly with regard to the immigration issue. However, their views of the other Republican candidates, I am pretty much in agreement with. It is sad that Mitt Romney has so altered who he was as governor of Massachussetts, because that candidate might have been more enticing than who he has become. But I particularly echo their sentiment when it comes to Mike Huckabee. It is well said and makes me feel good that the Times has the courage to point out that his insertion of religion into the race with regard to Mitt Romney should disqualify him from the office.
The Times has spoken.