Editorial boards unleash zingers on Trump, Clinton
More than a third of the largest newspapers in America have weighed in on the presidential candidates ahead of November’s elections, and, for the first time since the party began fielding candidates, the Republican nominee has been shut out.
{mosads}Thirty of the 33 papers that have endorsed a candidate have backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Another three have chosen former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee.
Three more had different takes: USA Today, breaking from its three-decade tradition of refusing to endorse a candidate, specifically weighed in against GOP nominee Donald Trump, while the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the Tulsa World chose “none of the above.”
Editorial boards often use their endorsements to dump on the candidate they oppose, but this year writers across the nation have taken their shots at Trump to new heights. Clinton, too, is broadly unpopular across the nation, even with editorial boards who say she is the best candidate.
Here are the harshest lines papers have used about both candidates so far this year:
“Like millions of Americans, The [Columbus] Dispatch editorial board has asked this question more than once: How, in a nation of more than 300 million people, did we end up with two such disliked and distrusted presidential candidates?”
“The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric,” the Arizona Republic said, endorsing a Democrat for the first time in its history.
“Trump brands himself as an outsider untainted by special interests, but we see a man utterly corrupted by self-interest. His narcissistic bid for the presidency is more about making himself great than America,” said The Cincinnati Enquirer.
“Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities – his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance – is enough to be disqualifying,” wrote the Houston Chronicle.
“Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?” asked The New York Times.
“He’s famous and wealthy, a TV personality, a showman — but what in his resume suggests he is qualified to lead the country?” wondered the Los Angeles Times.
“Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch said in support of Johnson.
“Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we,” marveled USA Today.
“Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest,” said the Dallas Morning News — another paper that typically endorses Republican candidates.
“Trump could be our Chávez, our Kirchner. We cannot take that risk,” said the San Diego Union-Tribune, which had never backed a Democratic candidate until now.
“Trump cannot seem to finish a complete thought. He is inarticulate to the point of incoherency. His understanding of world affairs is embarrassingly naive,” said the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. They added: “Clinton is no angel. This newspaper has criticized her extremely bad decision as secretary of state to route official emails, including some containing classified material, through a personal server housed in the basement of her home.”
“Heaven help America were, unthinkably, Clinton to fail. She is all that stands between the United States of America and never-before-seen proof that the Founding Fathers weren’t all that they’ve been cracked up to be,” the New York Daily News worried.
“[Trump] has ridden to the White House gate on the backs of Americans who believe they’ve been robbed of opportunity and respect. But inaugurating a bombastic and self-aggrandizing President Donald Trump isn’t the cure,” said the Chicago Tribune, which backed Johnson.
“It is a test of whether American voters have the wisdom to identify and dispel a demagogue with authoritarian instincts who is treating a run for the presidency as if it were a reality TV show where outlandishness is the coin of the realm,” said the San Francisco Chronicle.
“Trump has attracted support from too many of those who represent the worst of human nature,” said The Detroit News, which backed Johnson.
“A Trump presidency would be a disaster for our country, and worse for those of us on the border,” worried the El Paso Times.
“[Trump] is in fact a lewd, bigoted, untested blowhard whose reckless actions and thoughtless decision-making processes put him in a class never before seen on such a stage,” wrote The Denver Post.
“For voters on the fence who dislike Clinton and are wary of Trump, this election is like the game of “would you rather” — would you rather eat a slug or a tarantula?” said the Seattle Times, which backed George W. Bush in 2000.
The Tulsa World refused to endorse any candidate.“We don’t trust Hillary Clinton, and we don’t think the nation is ready to follow her. … From Day One, the Trump campaign has brought out the worst of America, not the greatness that he promises,” they wrote.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Regular the hill posts
The Hill Podcasts
