tfromtulsa, Tulsa (11/2/2008 4:20:09 PM)

Nice try, TW, for using reverse psychology to get us to vote for Obama. It's not going to work, though.

tfromtulsa, Tulsa (11/2/2008 4:25:33 PM)

Hey Cory - Amazing letter on "Voting for Dummies"! YOU should be running for president!

KJNOKIE, TULSA (11/2/2008 5:30:13 PM)

Is there anyone who would base their vote on TW's endorsement? I surely hope not.

Democrat, Tulsa County (11/2/2008 4:54:34 AM)

The real reason that the TW supports John McCain is that its readers, by a lop-sided margin, support John McCain and the TW owners fear losing subscriptions. There, the truth needed to be told.

Democrat, Tulsa County (11/2/2008 6:47:44 AM)

wa72:

You are sceaming in your final line. Doesn't that make you an extremist?

Democrat, Tulsa County (11/2/2008 11:04:38 AM)

Good point Ken. Both Democrats and Republicans should consider the importance of the incumbent President's record in 2012, just as Republicans should have noticed the pathetic record of our current President in 2004.

Democrat, Tulsa County (11/2/2008 1:51:26 PM)

Martin:

The Oklahoman is even worse than the TW. It does explain why the thinking of so many Oklahomans is so backwards. Public opinion is influenced by the media. In Oklahoma it is garbage in-garbage out. Imagine, the TW actually brags that it has suppported Republicans in each presidential election since 1940. Just imagine FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were opposed by this paper while it supported Thomas Dewey, both Bush's, Bob Dole, Dick Nixon, and now John McCain. What a record!!!!!!!!

Democrat, Tulsa County (11/2/2008 2:31:24 PM)

So Obama's lead is due to him being a deceiver. LOL!!!!!!!! And I thought that he was winning because he has demonstrated that he is cool during a crisis and because McCain has demonstrated that he cracks under pressure.

When the economic news soured, McCain was going to call off his campaign and then he didn't. He was going to cancel or postpone the debate and then he didn't. He was going to Washington to put together a deal and then we hear that he sat silently through the meeting. He made a few phone calls from his Virginia condo and then he claimed that Obama was "phoning in" his response. Then McCain failed to convince enough members of the Republican House delegation to vote for the initial bill. Only after Republican pork was added were enough votes found to pass the bailout.

McCain refers to his audience as his "fellow prisoners." He told one audience that the Obama campaign thinks that they are idiots and that he couldn't agree with them more.

Obama hasn't deceived the voters. He hasn't had to do anything except talk about the issues. McCain has imploded and the election in two days will not be close.

Tim Denver, Denver (11/3/2008 10:32:55 AM)

John McCain released a new television ad Friday night that was immediately removed from the air waves. It started off with Pike's Peak,. Next appears Katharine Lee Bates who morphs into Barack Obama. The words to "America the Beautiful" start scrolling on the left side of the add. Scrolls down to "Purple Mountains Majesty" which is crossed out and replaced with the words "Your majesty with the black face" followed by the words "do you really want this face in the White House?" Ends with "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

Enraged callers inundated televison stations and republican offices state wide. The add was removed immediately.

Descendants of Katharine Lee Bates have asked for an apology from McCain. Not a peep out mof the old geezer.

The republican party hit a new low this weekend.

Ayo2, T-Town (11/2/2008 8:36:52 PM)

I've never based my vote on a newspaper's endorsement. Not any newspaper. But this is hilarious, because for weeks the bloggers on here that are for mcCain have been calling TW a libral newspaper. Ha! with an endorsement of our favorite okie idiot, Jim Inhofeofabrain and now McCain. Now that's some libral media for ya! wink, wink.

Obama will win. Watch.

Ayo2, T-Town (11/2/2008 8:38:37 PM)

You're too funny, rocketman. I haven't seen you be objective about anything. And I don't believe someone has to agree with my point of view to be objective.

Ahhh, but the differing opinions is what makes the world interesting.

Ayo2, T-Town (11/2/2008 8:49:45 PM)

Hey! We Mvskoke's didn't scalp. But, they did cut off ears and noses for things such as stealing or adultry. The would also let the victim flog them in the town square!

I do so appreciate our current laws. I might be missing a nose or ear, otherwise.

Bodean, Tulsa (11/2/2008 6:15:57 AM)

The World has endorsed republicans in presidential elections since 1940. Why should it be any different this time or any time in the future? I guess there's not a progressive streak to be found at your paper. John McCain failed the "Country First" test by inviting Sarah Palin to join his ticket - a purely political move - and the World fell for it.

It's time for this paper to gear up for the 21st century. Quit running fluff pieces about Jim Inhofe's beleifs about Barack Obama's patriotism, hateful attack latters from Sydney Williams in Stillwater, and endless Assosiated Press stories. Newspapers now rank third as an information source for politics and I think the editors should take note. You're doing a bad job. Your claim that the World isn't a partisan newspaper is really weak. You even misrepresent Obama in your endorsement of McCain. Sydney would be proud. My subscription will be lapsing soon and I will not renew. Not just for endorsing the wrong candidate, but for your overall staunchly right wing views.

See ya!

Drachir555, Broken Arrow (11/3/2008 9:21:18 AM)

Go figure. This endorsement is clearly, as it always is, based on subscription demographics. What Tulsa World has no clue about is the growing population of Tulsans that are shifting OUT of the RED. Get a clue TW, you will likely loose some subscriptions in the near future. There is a growing number of Obama supporters out there, but fortunately for you most of us are liberal enough to take your endorsement is meaningless. Vote Obama/Biden in 2008 - our only hope for change in America.

grizz, tulsa (11/2/2008 10:36:39 AM)

I'm neither surprised or disappointed. TW has it's opinion, I have mine, Others have theirs. Mine hasn't changed. I'm voting for whom I consider the least offensive.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/2/2008 12:08:34 PM)

Yeah, TonyQ? What about democratic values? What about Obama has one of the most anti-gun voting record of any senator on the state and national levels? Talking about ignoring the constitution, huh?

What about how Obama supported legislation to allow underage women to get abortions without their parent's consent? What rational parent would want that person to become president? I don't care if you're for or against abortion; that's just scary.

Without going into specifics, what about Obama's far far far left voting record? He's got the most liberal voting record in the senate bar none, no matter how much he tries to lie about his political stances. Even liberals have to be scared about someone who is too liberal. Heck, as a conservative I'm not afraid to denounce someone who is TOO conservative. Either extreme is bad. In this case, Obama is as extreme as any member of the senate based strictly on his voting record. And those aren't America's values.

Good job, Tulsa World. I find both your arguments (especially the first one) very convincing. I applaud your decision. It's a beacon of rationality and light amidst a fog of irrationality among our nation's newspapers.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/2/2008 1:53:02 PM)

No, Tony. Obama has a SLIGHT lead in the polls (not a landslide one) only because he is a deceiver, the media overwhelmingly favor him, and people believe it all because they are naive or ignorant. Obama’s shallow, empowering speeches play on America's desperate desire for a savior and he claims to be one (often in such a way that indicates he has a Messiah Complex, although lately, like everything else, he’s backed off that to appease conservatives). America, in general, doesn't like the Bush administration, and Obama plays on that by linking McCain to Bush at every turn. And the ignorant and naive, who are familiar with nothing but what information and misinformation the Obama campaign promotes about McCain, believe it.

Not only is believing Obama to be moderate not founded upon his past actions and voting record, but completely in contradiction to those things. His far left record goes back into his days in the Illinois senate, not just his days in the US Senate. Although, he did accumulate a brief voting record (his lack of an experienced voting record is something scary in it of itself) that was more liberal than any senator – a group that includes notoriously liberal senator Ted Kennedy!

It's you people I am scared of. People like you who think that underage girls have the right to "have autonomy over their own bodies" without parental consent for something like an abortion – that is just scary. When you have children, tell me if your stance on that has changed. No need to mention whether you do or do not have children, because I won't believe you if you said you were fine with not knowing your underage daughter was pregnant, then getting an abortion behind your back. Under 18 = not able to make that decision. It's people like you, and Obama, who will run this country into h**l.

Oh, and by the way, you need to check your facts. Obama isn't only in favor of strict gun control laws. He voted to make it illegal for people in Illinois to buy guns at all, and that is a complete and utter violation of the 2nd amendment. Deal with it. And you might also want to deal with the fact that the Iraq War is not an illegal war. Congress approved it by giving Bush the authority to conduct military action in Iraq. There is nothing illegal about it.

But why are we talking about Bush again? Oh, yes. Because Obama has indoctrinated his followers with the belief that all republicans, including McCain are Bush. One of the symptoms of hard times – wanting a savior as well as a scapegoat. Hitler played the same card.

Get a clue. Vote McCain.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/2/2008 5:29:55 PM)

We're not scared of change, Politico. You think Obama is so revolutionary and groundbreaking because he uses the word "change"? Why do you take that promise at face value? The fact that you do, when there is so much evidence that he is not who he claims, scares us. I will clarify: Tony was supporting Obama's vote to allow underage girls to get abortions without their parents knowing about it. That's what I was scared of. That isn't the kind of change I want.

And I'm also not so easily taken by this head-in-the-clouds novice who gets up on a stage with a pretty smile but nothing to back up his promises. It says a lot about Obama supporters that they buy into such vague, unhelpful rhetoric. If they supported Obama for his actual stances (those far-left radical views backed up by his voting record, personal and spiritual life) and not those that were significantly watered down after Hillary was out of the picture to appeal to moderates, he would most definitely not be in the mix right now. Heck, he didn't even get nominated by way of the popular vote ... in spite of the caucus system handing him handfuls of states on silver platters!

So yes, he is a genuine, ominous threat. A threat to America. A threat to our values. And with our nation in such a crisis, someone this inexperienced is indeed a genuine threat to our well-being. So you're right, I am scared.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/3/2008 11:10:44 AM)

Tony, I'm not talking about your views on abortion, or anybody else's, for that matter. I'm talking about underage girls getting abortions without parental consent. You think adolescent girls have the capacity to make that decision themselves? You think an underage girl facing a plethora of problems because she is pregnant has the emotional stability to know how that decision will affect her for the rest of her life? You don't think a parent should have the right to help her make the decision? You don't think a parent has the right to know? To raise their underage daughter according to their own moral or spiritual beliefs? To have the option raising the baby as their own? To provide a rational set of alternatives as only an adult could? Again, I don't care where you stand on abortion: Obama's vote to let underage girls get abortions without parental consent undermines the basic family structure of our society. That's scary.

MTS, you seem to be attempting to blur the line between left and right, which is something Obama does due to his far left record and need for conservative votes. It can be denied, but there is a vast difference between the left and the right; one need only look at the example in the above paragraph. I'm conservative in certain areas, but not all areas—I'm actually quite moderate. As for me having a "gift for judging candidates and discerning BS from truth," it has been laid out by the Tulsa World's endorsement and subsequent comments why I support McCain and not Obama. I will explain briefly why Obama is "not who he says he is," as I said in a previous comment.

I point to his dramatic shift to center immediately following Hillary's departure, an obvious ploy for votes and a radical drift from his radical left voting record and comments during the primaries; his outright lies concerning his closeness with Rev. Wright and William Ayres, which he later recanted when it was discovered that he lied; his claim to be a departure from the "same old politics," even while delivering cold-hearted political moves such as trouncing his heartfelt promise to uphold public financing when it was politically advantageous to do so; his claim to "reach across the aisle" when he has never done so (in fact, has been one of the most partisan politicians in Washington with a voting record nearly 100% in line with the democratic party); etc. These constitute a brief selection of instances that suggest Obama is not the “changer” he claims to be—or maybe he is, but with the wrong kind of change. After all, he’s very vague about what “change” entails other than being different from Bush. If half of Americans don’t see that, they are too easily captured by slick politicians with tempting messages. And since he’s never proven he can deliver or be a leader in times of crisis—since he has virtually no proven background—I know voters support him for that message alone. Does that sound naïve to you? We can’t play around with America future. We need proven leadership. McCain isn’t the greatest candidate there ever was, but he best fits that need.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/3/2008 11:54:02 AM)

Not a cut and paste, but it was repetitive. You asked, MTS, so I just assumed you hadn't read any of it.

What does who I voted for in 2000 and 2004 have anything to do with this election? Another case of believing Obama's predictable campaign rhetoric lumping McCain with everything related to Bush? Take it from someone who usually registers Republican: They are not the same.

zrs, Tulsa, Claremore (11/3/2008 4:03:36 PM)

You’re missing something, though, Tony. A scared underage girl is not exactly the most logical person in the world, especially a pre-16 year old. Don't you think they would be far more inclined to get an abortion without risking getting in trouble or disappointing their parents, without fully understanding the ramifications of such a decision? This is an issue of a minor's health both mentally and physically and the life of a potential baby. Underage girls do not have the capacity to make that decision, or even the wisdom to ask for help in making it if there is an easier way out.

In every other case where the health of their children is an issue, parents have authority: They must agree to any health procedures conducted on their children because children don't have the full capacity to understand what is being done to them. You want to make abortion, where there are two lives involved, the lone exception to that precedence?

This is not a typical position within the Democratic Party, especially with southern democrats. This is one of the frighteningly radical positions of Obama that many people in this election are forgetting.

Rocketman, Tulsa (11/2/2008 6:50:14 PM)

I was impressed with the Tulsa Worlds' three point unbiased evaluation of both candidates. Objectivity appears to be in short supply these days, but the World came through in the most important decision our country has faced since the Vietnam era.

Simpletons will continue to post scathing comments about your endorsement because they lack the needed objectivity to listen with discernment when listening to Obama. His campaign has epitomized the "chicken in every pot" pandering the liberals feed the useful idiots who vote for them.

Rocketman, Tulsa (11/2/2008 8:45:36 PM)

Ayo2,

Don't scalp me for saying this, but I am not paid to be non partisan.

wa72, wagoner (11/2/2008 6:35:17 AM)

Good job, TW, when you have the libs screaming you are doing well. Any time the extremist on either side yell, you have hit the point.
GO MCCAIN, PALIN.

Bluebird of DOOM, Sand Springs (11/2/2008 1:43:28 PM)

Question:

How do YOU 'editorial writers' all come in unison agree on the same points in article??

It always puzzled me when single article is written by many.

Me thinks this was written by a wee one. :-D