Vote McBush for President because he says he won't do exactly what his predecessor did, though he won't do anything different?  There's a fine argument.

McBush is the only one who can save George W. Bush from being the Worst President Ever, by being even worse.

"Without McCain setting a brake in the White House, it will be a runaway Democratic train of increasing taxing and spending. "

McCain will have to increase taxes and plans on continued  war spending.

How can a public forum like the Californian, or any newspaper, for that matter, endorse any particular candidate? News is meant to be unbiased, and the fact that a newspaper not only chooses a candidate but attempts to sway their readers to vote for that candidate is wrong. Shame on the BC!

The way I see it, this must be the opinion of someone in power at the paper, and this endorsement would not effect my vote either way, even if I had not already made my choice.

It's a long tradition for newspapers to endorse conservatives, Ghostriter.  Comes from the right-wing bias of people why buy ink by the barrel.

Colin Powell.  Ouch!  Houston Chronical. Ouch!  Bakerfield Californian - still cultivating ignorance.

It's a long tradition for newspapers to endorse conservatives, Ghostriter.

Like the L.A. Times?

http://www.latimes.com/news... 

OK, for the sake of argument McCain is our saviour. He is also over 72 and a cancer patient. What if he croaks in office? Is fundie-girl ready for the Oval Office on day one? Do you endorse her experience like you do McCain's?

Bakerfield Californian - still cultivating ignorance.

Yet you post here more than anyone else. Tired of getting beaten up on MyDesert.com, Mr. Foster?

At least the LA Times' endorsement has substance to it. TBC uses twisted logic to come to its conclusion that McCain is the best candidate, just as it did with its Chad Vegas endorsement. And, as catpaw said, what about fundie-girl running the nation? Talk about unprepared!

Who care what presidential candidate TBC or Kern county chooses............It doesn't matter............California will go blue....I bet that really pisses off all you Conservatives ha ha ha. Like your vote really matters. lol Go Obama..........

 How can a public forum like the Californian, or any newspaper, for that matter, endorse any particular candidate?

You make a good point, Ghostriter. I think it's one of those traditions that have continued without much thought behind it.

This is from the LA Times blog page:

The last time The Times editorially endorsed a presidential candidate was Richard Nixon in 1972. Through that year, the newspaper's presidential endorsement process was, shall we say, fairly predictable. Whoever was the Republican candidate got the nod in print. The 126-year-old newspaper has never endorsed a Democrat for president.

--Andrew Malcolm 

Yes it is that old liberal bias all over again. How funny.

This endorsement by The Bakersfield Californian flies in the face of its own argument:

Certainly some of today’s economic problems had roots in earlier administrations. But the lock-step march over the cliff of deregulation, overspending and tax-cutting was disastrous.

Deregulation, overspending and tax-cutting (to the benefit of less than 2% of our citizens) are the hallmarks of the Republican controlled Congress of 12 of the last 14 years, and the current Bush Administration. It is unfair and inaccurate to suggest or imply that these last two years of a narrowly controlled Democratic Congress, with both veto and filibuster powers by Republicans, has had anything to do with our governmental policies and direction. You endorse failure with this editorial decision. But, this same board also endorses a high school board trustee and current candidate who repudiates evolution.

Did they leave any McCain talking points out? Not that I could tell.

 Yet you post here more than anyone else. Tired of getting beaten up on MyDesert.com, Mr. Foster?

Even though your comment has that creepy stalker quality which I make careful note on in the event that "someone" invades my privacy, I'll answer your question, understanding that you are a sockpuppet and all and likely someone who has been banned from this site. What you didn't notice on my local site is how little **anyone** posts or comments, especially me. Its their software.  Gannett newspapers are all over the country and they centralize their web development in Atlanta.

Since I've been participating in forums since the very FIRST one was introduced on the net, and since I ran one for ten years, I'm able to judge their quality pretty well.  Last week, when I was in Bakersfield for a family reunion, I pointed my relatives to B.com and told them that, among the social networking sites run by newspapers, B.com was definitely in the upper tier in its quality.

That's really the reason I prefer B.com.  You can have an actual conservation on here and you can't really do that on the Gannett sites.  Jason has done an outstanding job in designing this site. It has a few bugs, but it's really superior in terms of allowing the conservation to flow freely.

The 126-year-old newspaper has never endorsed a Democrat for president.

NEWS FLASH: "The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president."
 

Duh~ that why it is so remarkable that they have.

Revealing personal information about any poster here is against the TOS.

Never *BEFORE* Obama have they endorsed a Democrat.  But the Republican *THIS* year is *AWFUL*.

(They made no endorsement from 1976 through 2004)

Editor and Publisher:  106 to 33 (tally of newspaper endorsement).  The Bakersfield Californian should page Editor and Publisher to get the tally up to 106 to 34.   When Kerry ran against Bush it was 213 to 205.  Makes the current tallies look pretty staggering in Obama's favor.

Shocking!!

No mention of the Palin problem in this endorsement.  That's was a smart move.

To really fuzz things up, wouldn't it be a hoot if Bill Ayers and the Rev. Wright also endorsed McCain? What kind of reaction would THAT get? I laugh just thinking about it.

Bin Laden's considering it.

(They made no endorsement from 1976 through 2004)

Nixon got mad at the L.A. Times in 1971, and told Bob Haldeman, "I want the whole [expletive] bunch gone after." Of course, they didn't know it until his tapes were released years later.

http://query.nytimes.com/gs...

"He has shown little independence from his party’s leaders. The November election will likely give Democrats greater control of Congress. Without McCain setting a brake in the White House, it will be a runaway Democratic train of increasing taxing and spending.

A Republican President John McCain working with a Democratic Congress can steer the nation along a deliberate and moderate course."
 

In other words: vote McCain because he's not Obama.

Nice.

In other words: vote McCain because he's not Obama.

Actually it's more vote McCain because party loyalty trumps economic sense. At least that's how the National Review is depicting it today. It's the backlash from the Collin Powell endorsement.  If your economic policy amount to "I'll give a tax break to the rich" and you're taking to working stiffs, the only recourse you have is to appeal to the extremes that associate your opponent with terrorism.

That, among a whole laundry list of valid criticisms, was what Gen. Powell laid out yesterday. He was correct. And that makes The Bakersfield Californian culpable in dividing our nation. The mere endorsement of John McCain is an endorsement of his cultivation of extremism.  While taking a pro-constitutional position on Prop 8, the Californian undermines that position by endorsing McCain-Palin, 

What does Palin think? Well, before she's an American, she's a Christian fundamentalist before anything.  Her remarks to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

See. Palin wants to take HER morality to the national level.  Now. What purpose is served by The Bakerfield Californian to recommend the defeat of Prop 8 then turn around and endorse Sarah Palin's vice presidency; the person who would replace John McCain in an emergency?  You must wonder what TBC's editorial board must have been thinking.

In other words: vote McCain because he's not Obama.

"He's the white guy."

Such an endorsement comes to me with no surprise.

TBC endorsed Bush for president, twice.  I think I'll follow my own counsel on this.  No offense of course.