Obama’s hometown paper rejects Hillary, endorses Libertarian
The Windy City, which has recently been dubbed the “crime capital of America,” under the watch of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel – who left his post serving the Obama administration as the White House Chief of Staff in order to run for mayor – has apparently had enough of the promises laid out by the Democratic Party to improve things.
“This is the moment to see this election as not so much about them as about the American people and where their country is heading,” states The Chicago Tribune editorial. “And this is the moment to rebuke the Republican and Democratic parties.”
Why not Hillary for president?
The editorial board goes on to explain why it believes Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Clinton are not the ideal candidates for America, but most of its time is spent pointing out the failings of the former first lady – who is endorsed by the presidential candidate who the paper endorsed for the last two elections – Obama.
“[For reasons we’ll explain – her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust – we cannot endorse her,” the Leftist paper expressed. “Clinton’s vision of ever-expanding government is in such denial of our national debt crisis as to be fanciful.”
In fact, it is argued that Clinton has shifted her campaign way too far to the Left – even for most liberals in Chicago.
“Rather than run as a practical-minded Democrat as in 2008, this year she lurched Left, pandering to match the Free Stuff agenda of then-rival Bernie Sanders,” the Chicago daily argues. “She has positioned herself so far to the Left on spending that her presidency would extend the political schism that has divided America for some 24 years – that is, since the middle of a relatively moderate Clinton presidency. Today’s Hillary Clinton, unlike yesteryear’s, renounces many of Bill Clinton’s priorities – freer trade, spending discipline, light regulation and private sector growth to generate jobs and tax revenues.”
Clinton’s dealing with the economy is blasted further in the editorial.
“Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress,” the editors continued. “The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Clinton’s plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Spending just on debt interest would rise by $50 billion. Personal and business taxation would rise by $1.5 trillion. Sort through all the details and her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion.”
It is also asserted that Clinton’s promises to put federal money towards numerous programs to lure voters into her corner are nothing more than a bluff.
“Now, as in the primary season, Clinton knows she is proposing orgies of spending, and taxing, that simply will … not … happen,” the Left-leaning newspaper pointed out. “She is promising Americans all manner of things she cannot deliver. That is but one of the reasons why so many Americans reject Clinton: They don’t trust what she says, how she makes decisions, and her up-to-the-present history of egregiously erasing the truth …”
Hillary not trustworthy as secretary of state … or as president …
Clinton’s unscrupulous handling of the Benghazi attack and her email server were the first examples used by the paper to illustrate Clinton’s untruthfulness with the American public.
“In the wake of a deadly attack on American personnel in Libya, she steered the American public away from the real cause – an inconvenient terror attack right before the 2012 election – after privately emailing the truth to her daughter,” the editorial reads. “The head of the FBI, while delivering an indictment minus the grand jury paperwork, labeled her ‘extremely careless’ for mishandling emails sensitive to national security. In public, she stonewalled, dissembled and repeatedly lied – several were astonishing whoppers – about her private communications system: (‘There is no classified material,’ ‘Everything I did was permitted,’ and on and on).”
It was asserted that Clinton used her position as America’s chief foreign diplomat to bring in money to the Clinton Foundation, and the daily also stressed that Americans can’t even trust the Democratic presidential nominee to tell the truth about the current condition of her health.
“Her negligence in enforcing conflict-of-interest boundaries allowed her family’s foundation to exploit the U.S. Department of State as a favor factory,” the editors added. “Even her command and control of a routine medical issue devolved into a secretive, misleading mission to hide information from Americans.”
Clinton’s unwillingness to commit to an issue before weighing in on public opinion was also emphasized.
“Time upon time, Clinton’s behavior affirms the perception that she’s a corner-cutter whose ambitions drive her decisions,” the periodical impressed. “One telling episode among the countless: Asked by a voter if she was for or against the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, she replied, ‘If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.’ As we’ve asked here before, will Hillary Clinton ever get over her consuming fear of straight talk?”
Pushing the third choice …
The Chicago paper stands by its vow not to cast its ballot for the blue or the red this year, which it says has forced it to back a candidate who more closely aligns with its ideals.
“We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president – regardless of his or her prospects for victory – than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates,” the news staff from the Windy City explained. “With that demand for a principled president paramount, we turn to the candidate we can recommend.”
It used the aforementioned lack of confidence as a segue to officially endorse the Libertarian’s pick for the White House.
“One party has two moderate Republicans – veteran governors who successfully led Democratic states – atop its ticket,” The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board concluded. “Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune‘s principles, but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible. This year, neither major party presents a good option. So The Chicago Tribune today endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States.”
The editors also mentioned the impact another third-party candidate made in a presidential election nearly a quarter of a century ago …
“What’s more, principled third-party candidates can make big contributions – even when they lose,” they pressed. “In 1992, businessman H. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote on a thin but sensible platform – much of it constructed around reducing federal deficits. That strong showing by Perot – the relative centrist – influenced how President Bill Clinton would govern.”
This point also poses a sober reality for many conservative voters – that a strong backing for Johnson could be the very vehicle to put Hillary Clinton in the White House … just as Perot’s nabbing nearly 20 percent of the vote boosted her husband, Bill Clinton, into the Oval Office over incumbent Republican presidential nominee George H. W. Bush in 1992.
We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses