To be clear Mr Cruz may have some good and logical positions in some areas. He just doesn't pass the baseline requirements for me.

"In 16 of the last 20 elections, a majority of American newspapers who endorse political candidates for president have preferred the Republican candidate. Democrats typically lose the endorsement race."

 

Source is Editor and Publisher, the trade magazine for the newspaper industry. Link below.

 

Editor & Publisher - Shoptalk/Commentary: How Incumbent Presidents Fare in Newspaper Endorsements

If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Where have you heard that before? We are talking recent history here, not early to mid-20th century newspaper endorsements. You might want to look at the list in Wikipedia of 2012 endorsements and then reconsider your position that major newspapers tend to be "right of center." There is no such tendency. Even the Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, and Charleston Gazette endorsed Obama in 2012, despite the fact that the voters in both Kentucky and West Virginia overwhelmingly preferred Romney.

 

2012 Newspaper Endorsement List

I do agree and find it funny that everytime a Republican bucks the trend of the party and has some more Socially liberal stances the Left gets scared and then starts painting the picture of a lunatic. As long as Nancy Pelosi is one your leaders the Democrat party needs to slow down on the Looney talk.

Then there's the issue of nullification. If we all agree what Mitch Rapp keeps telling us ie Mr Cruz is highly intelligent then that only leaves one explanation for his stance on nullification: he wants to violate the US Constitution. He says nullification allows states to bypass the President's veto powers. He said this in order to support his case that the states can ignore the health care laws. Not true. Is he not smart enough to know that?

 

ThinkProgress didn't make up his quote. Was there some context missing?

Ted Cruz obviously believes that the authors of the U.S. Constitution were serious when they included the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. If a state believes that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has every right not to comply with it until the Supreme Court rules that the law is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution did not grant the federal government unlimited power. What in the Constitution gives a federal agency any power to require that a state fund a federal mandate? The Supreme Court has ruled only on a small part of Obamacare and Obamacare is a massive law to which the Obama administration has added thousands of pages of regulations.

 

You and other liberals may not agree that the federal government was only granted limited power over states by the Constitution but it is a fact. The federal government cannot simply pass laws governing anything that they want and command compliance from the states. That is not how our federal system was designed to work. Ted Cruz is an "originalist" who believes that the Constitution means what it says. It is true that states have used the power of taxation to coerce states to comply with federal laws that cover areas in which they have no jurisdiction, but that does not make it right.

 

Often, federal agencies hand out grants to states to implement federal laws. If states object, then they can say no to the return of tax money that their own citizens were forced to pay to the IRS. It is a sweet system if you believe in a large, centralized federal government that is free to trample on rights that were reserved to the states.

 

As for ThinkProgress, I am not going to debate the point. There is plenty of video footage of Ted Cruz available on Youtube. If you are comfortable reading out of context quotes and paraphrased accounts of Cruz's positions in left wing blogs like ThinkProgress and conclude on that basis that Cruz is "crazy," then I am not going to change your mind with reason.

 

In case you are unaware of this fact, the Bush family is as busy trying to discredit Cruz as liberals are. They know that he is a threat to Jeb's presidential hopes. I hope that they are right. We do not need another Bush in the White House.

Then there's the issue of nullification. If we all agree what Mitch Rapp keeps telling us ie Mr Cruz is highly intelligent then that only leaves one explanation for his stance on nullification: he wants to violate the US Constitution. He says nullification allows states to bypass the President's veto powers. He said this in order to support his case that the states can ignore the health care laws. Not true. Is he not smart enough to know that?

 

ThinkProgress didn't make up his quote. Was there some context missing?

 

So when Ted Cruz cites the Constitution as his reasoning for supporting nullification, it's violating the Constitution and thus he's whacky. But when Obama's administration and Eric Holder don't hold up numerous laws and even bypass state laws, they're completely in the right?

 

Some strange logic there.

If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Where have you heard that before? We are talking recent history here, not early to mid-20th century newspaper endorsements. You might want to look at the list in Wikipedia of 2012 endorsements and then reconsider your position that major newspapers tend to be "right of center." There is no such tendency. Even the Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, and Charleston Gazette endorsed Obama in 2012, despite the fact that the voters in both Kentucky and West Virginia overwhelmingly preferred Romney.

 

2012 Newspaper Endorsement List

We'll know in '16 whether the editorial shift to Obama is a trend or was an aberration. Historically, newspapers have been solidly Republican. Underline the word "historically." And by "newspapers," I'm talking about Henderson, Ky., and all the little dailies as well as the New York Times. Having said that, newspapers are nowhere as influential as they once were. Heck, most days i read the Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial page -- if you can call it that -- in probably 2 minutes.

Right-wing rage sells much better than left-wing rage. On the other hand, the right has no equivalent of Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart, which probably mirrors why young people don't find the GOP attractive. Left-wing talk radio is pretty much kaput. It never succeeded in getting the NPR types to tune in. Look at the demographics for who listens to right-wing talk radio lots and lots of old Republican white men. I read somewhere that Rush Limbaugh's listeners are 96% Republican. He just serves to reinforce existing beliefs. One sees the same thing in the chit-chat rooms on Bluegrasspreps.com.

You are continuing to display a poor knowledge of conservative talk radio. "Lots and lots of old white men" are not the "target demographic" and if Rush Limbaugh did not do well in the "target demographic," then he would not be heard on over 600 radio stations around the nation.

 

Your opinion that liberals are academic types who listen to NPR and are just too smart to listen to talk radio is exactly the reason that liberals cannot compete in a free market with people like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has been on the air 25 years and he still has the #1 rated show on radio. His audience dwarfs those of Colbert and Stewart. Wherever you read that 96 percent of Rush's audience is Republican is wrong. It is not even close, but so what if it was on the money? Rush's target audience consists of conservatives and most conservatives are either Republicans or independents. Do you think that if the content of Rush's show attracted more Democrats, his show would be more successful? I think that would be a recipe for failure.

You are continuing to display a poor knowledge of conservative talk radio. "Lots and lots of old white men" are not the "target demographic" and if Rush Limbaugh did not do well in the "target demographic," then he would not be heard on over 600 radio stations around the nation.

 

Your opinion that liberals are academic types who listen to NPR and are just too smart to listen to talk radio is exactly the reason that liberals cannot compete in a free market with people like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has been on the air 25 years and he still has the #1 rated show on radio. His audience dwarfs those of Colbert and Stewart. Wherever you read that 96 percent of Rush's audience is Republican is wrong. It is not even close, but so what if it was on the money? Rush's target audience consists of conservatives and most conservatives are either Republicans or independents. Do you think that if the content of Rush's show attracted more Democrats, his show would be more successful? I think that would be a recipe for failure.

Who do you think listens to Limbaugh and AM radio -- young intellectuals or the prostate-challenged?

 

WHO LISTENS TO NEWS/TALK/INFORMATION RADIO?

NUMBERS FOR 2011

SOURCE: PEW RESEARCH

 

12-17 years old ..... 1%

18-24 years old ..... 2%

25-34 years old ..... 7%

35-44 years old ..... 12%

45-54 years old ..... 20%

55-64 years old ..... 23%

65 and over .......... 34%

We'll know in '16 whether the editorial shift to Obama is a trend or was an aberration. Historically, newspapers have been solidly Republican. Underline the word "historically." And by "newspapers," I'm talking about Henderson, Ky., and all the little dailies as well as the New York Times. Having said that, newspapers are nowhere as influential as they once were. Heck, most days i read the Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial page -- if you can call it that -- in probably 2 minutes.

You are using relatively ancient history and trying to apply it to the current political environment. That just won't work. Many of the people running newspapers in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s are dead. Many of the newspapers no longer exist or have changed hands. What relevance do their endorsements have to the endorsements that will come in 2016? None. Absolutely none. This is not rocket science the overwhelming majority of major newspapers will endorse whoever the Democratic candidate for president is in 2016, just as they did in 2008 and 2012. Nobody cares who small town newspapers with small circulation numbers endorse in a national election, including the candidates.

 

You are absolutely correct in acknowledging that the endorsements of major city newspapers has lost its impact. However, those endorsements still show a heavy liberal and Democratic bias that often finds its way off of the editorial page and into news articles. Bias can be very subtle, such as decisions of how to word headlines and on what page positive and negative news about a candidate is placed. In that regard, major newspapers still play a big role in presidential elections. I don't care what candidate a newspaper's editorial board endorses, but I do care when they play games with headlines and story placement to promote one candidate over another.

Who do you think listens to Limbaugh and AM radio -- young intellectuals or the prostate-challenged?

 

WHO LISTENS TO NEWS/TALK/INFORMATION RADIO?

NUMBERS FOR 2011

SOURCE: PEW RESEARCH

 

12-17 years old ..... 1%

18-24 years old ..... 2%

25-34 years old ..... 7%

35-44 years old ..... 12%

45-54 years old ..... 20%

55-64 years old ..... 23%

65 and over .......... 34%

Is there some reason that you believe young people to be more intellectually gifted than older people? You seem to be unaware of the indisputable fact that young people tend to grow more conservative with age. Your "prostrate-challenged" crack sounds like something that a 20-something Obama supporter with an inflated opinion of his own intellect might say.

 

I know who listens to Limbaugh and I have listened to their conversations with the host. In fact, Rush Limbaugh introduced me to economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, a friend of Rush's who used to guest host for him. After reading several of Sowell's books, I stumbled across some videos of Milton Friedman. As you grow older yourself, hopefully you will learn that people who you apparently consider old geezers can teach you some valuable lessons if you open your mind to them.

 

Of course, Dr. Sowell, is now over 80 years old, so he fits into your "prostrate-challenged" category and is apparently too old to be considered an academic in your narrow view of the world. :facepalm:

So when Ted Cruz cites the Constitution as his reasoning for supporting nullification, it's violating the Constitution and thus he's whacky. But when Obama's administration and Eric Holder don't hold up numerous laws and even bypass state laws, they're completely in the right?

 

Some strange logic there.

 

False. I haven't seen many people if anyone on BGP defend Eric Holder.

I'm going beyond Fox. AM radio has become nothing more than right-wing rage. The majority of American newspapers are right of center. Right-of-center websites (Newsmax, Infowars, Fox) attract millions of readers daily. The chit-chat rooms in Bluegrasspreps are decidedly right of center. In my opinion, "the media" is simply a fabricated term that serves as a piñata for right-wingers to poke sticks at. You make good points, but I think you discredit yourself by overusing the ambiguous "the media."

 

 

Where do you come up with your statistics? Link? Are you basing it on circulation or number of units? I also noticed no mention of network and cable.

"In 16 of the last 20 elections, a majority of American newspapers who endorse political candidates for president have preferred the Republican candidate. Democrats typically lose the endorsement race."

 

Source is Editor and Publisher, the trade magazine for the newspaper industry. Link below.

 

Editor & Publisher - Shoptalk/Commentary: How Incumbent Presidents Fare in Newspaper Endorsements

 

Again, how does that translate to other endorsements? How does that compare to the totals by unit or circulation?

False. I haven't seen many people if anyone on BGP defend Eric Holder.

 

Holder doesn't do anything without Obama's approval. That includes ignoring state and federal laws ie. ignoring the Constitution and violating states rights. The same reason Clyde is giving as to why he doesn't like Cruz and apparently is the reason he is "whacky."

Again, how does that translate to other endorsements? How does that compare to the totals by unit or circulation?

He is giving equal weight to a newspaper like the Ashland Daily Independent endorsing a Republican to the New York Times endorsing a Democrat. Even using those parameters, Obama received more endorsements in both 2008 and 2012. If you factor in the circulation numbers, the difference in endorsements would be astounding. Big city dailies have been heavily biased toward Democrats for years and now the small dailies are catching up with them.