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.

JTR, (11/2/2008 5:07:45 AM)

This is a spineless endorsement from a paper worried about losing subscriptions. Not a mention about Sarah Palin, which is common from the few editorial boards that have endorsed McCain in this country. Do you honestly think she is ready to step in on day one and be President? Of course not, unless you smoke crack. It absolutely kills the "experience" argument you rely on. You tout McCain's energy policy. He was against Drill Baby Drill before he was for it. You cannot seriously suggest he has a more comprehensive energy policy. And taxes? He adheres to the Bush tax cuts which he once called immoral. It is undeniable that he favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Need proof? We are in a recession, due in large part to Bush, whose economic agenda McCain has wholeheartedly endorsed. Indeed, you say McCain has the edge on the economy, but utterly ignore McCain's own admission he is not strong on that issue and you ignore his erratic response to the financial crisis where he suspended his campaign and came back empty handed. Whatever. Oh, and when (not if) Obama wins, he WILL NOT wish Obama well. That is laughable. He hates Obama. That was obvious at the debates. His is the campaign of character attacks. Both over and under the radar. I was going to cancel my subscription to the TW before this sorry editorial. The paper is boring. This editorial confirms it is delusional.

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!

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.

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?

FF, Tulsa (11/2/2008 7:16:17 AM)

Bodean,
Amen! I held a slim hope that the TW would not endorse John McCain for president. I thought they might even be embarrassed by their endorsement (twice) of the reckless cowboy that currently holds the position. But alas, I was wrong. I should have known the publisher could not let go of his right leaning family history and recommend some new ideas in government.

Ex-Tulsan Vi, Las Cruces (11/2/2008 8:01:31 AM)

I am not surprised at TW's endorsement. McCain is a Republican-that's all the editorial board needed. Nothing about McCain's background with the Keating Five, nothing about his marital messups, nothing but his party affiliation. Same as with Inhofe-he's wearing the brand. Boy, do I miss the Tulsa Tribune! Once in awhile, those 50 years I read The Tribune, just once in awhile the Tribune at least gave an occasional whiff of nonpartisanship. Really, though, eight years of the worst president ever and you think McCain is qualified? Wow.

Ex-Tulsan Vi, Las Cruces (11/2/2008 8:12:19 AM)

Oh, I get it, I think. The World is against youth! That's it. That's why they won't endorse the bright, young, idealistic Andrew Rice: he's younger than Inhofe. And McCain: he's 72 years old, it's his last chance, let's give the old guy a hand up. Never mind the old guy's judgement is badly flawed, particularly his choice of VP AND his infamous campaign ads. This nation has such a great opportunity right now, to have a supremely disciplined and intelligent young man to help correct the wrongs of the Bush administration. Let's talk about Barack Obama's experience vs. McCain's; dedication, hard work, vision, an ability to work across the aisle and compare that with McCain's famous temper, his alliance with the Keating Five and developers in Arizona - then make your choice. At least the Tulsa World only has a few votes from its (flawed) editorial staff.

tulsan09, Tulsa (11/2/2008 8:18:52 AM)

WAIT A MINUTE. I thought the Tulsa World was part of the left wing elitist liberal conspiracy. What happened?

As a moderate Republican who lost faith in McCain when he began sucking up to the extreme right wing fringe that has hijacked the Republican Party (he didn't need to, because they would have voted for him anyway), I am voting for Obama. McCain's appointment of Palin sealed the deal for me.

Regardless, the Tulsa World is owned privately by Tulsa family. This endorsement, or an endorsement for Obama, has absolutely no value. I don't know why people care what editorial position TW takes. If people are dumb enough to vote for anyone based on an endorsement, then I doubt they'll be smart enough to find their way to their voting precinct.

Graychin, Eucha (11/2/2008 8:25:16 AM)

Durn librul media.

maggie, Tulsa (11/2/2008 8:32:57 AM)

Just think about how frightening this is--The TW is the liberal "big-city" newspaper in Oklahoma. I am disappointed with the endorsement of McCain, but not surprised. I just wish the TW would not act like the only "world" is within 100 miles of Tulsa.

mamafrog, (11/2/2008 8:39:09 AM)

I am not surprised. But I am disappointed.

Ken S, (11/2/2008 9:07:22 AM)

It appears the Senator Obama will win the election Tuesday. It shall be very interesting to see, in four years, how many Democrats tout the importance of President Obama's presidential experience, and how many Republicans claim executive experience is overrated.

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.

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.

TonyQ, Tulsa (11/2/2008 11:41:11 AM)

"in each election the Republican has most closely reflected the values we want in the nation’s top office"

You mean proud incompetence, disrespect for the constitution, slanderous campaigning, and inability to govern? Does the Tulsa World endorse torture? What about illegal wars? What about authoritarian executive power? Yeah gotta love those Republican values. At least Bush didn't have an affair with an intern!

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.

TonyQ, Tulsa (11/2/2008 12:30:07 PM)

zrs,

You're so right. Being in favor of gun control laws and allowing young women to have autonomy over their own bodies are completely comparable to torture and illegal wars.

John Kerry was said to have the most liberal voting record in 2003. Four years before, Al Gore was the most liberal Senator. Are you sensing a pattern? Obama hasn't been in the senate that long, so a higher proportion of his votes would be party-line, skewing this irrelevant metric liberal. What matters is not what the National Review says about Obama, what matters are his policy positions. Turns out he's probably the most moderate of all the Democratic candidates this year. He's gone to great lengths to strike a conciliatory tone and make a play for the middle. But in my opinion, there are no "far left" people in our government. There are no socialists. But there sure are a lot of far-right nationalists.

But let's for the sake of argument assume that Obama is the most liberal senator. He's poised to win a landslide election. Maybe that means the country is far left? The Republicans certainly didn't have any compunction about claiming a mandate for their far-right agenda even when they won (I use the term loosely) by slim margins. God bless the liberal USA.

Martin Caudle, Tulsa (11/2/2008 1:28:36 PM)

Good God. I have been a faithful TW reader for years, but I have just about reached my limit. McCain? Really? Where have you people been for the last year? McCain is a repeat of the Bush era, and Sarah Palin wouldn't know what to do in the position of vice presidency if it were given to her in the form of pictures. I was appalled when the TW endorsed Inhofe after years and years of criticizing his performance in the Senate, but this carries it too far. I, for one, am finished with this "liberal rag". Increased prices, less news, shorter stories, right-wing. If I wanted that, I would subscribe to the "Oklahoman".

okbart, (11/2/2008 1:34:13 PM)

What a disappointment! I agree with most of the above. I actually told someone that I thought my paper would come out for Obama.

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

Bluebird of DOOM, Sand Springs (11/2/2008 1:44:51 PM)

oops "unison agreement". I made an error. Where is an editor when you need one!

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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.