Texas newspaper makes an endorsement.
A New York or California paper, sure. But Texas?
One of Texas’ largest news organizations has broken ranks and endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president with a scathing editorial eviscerating ‘dodgy’ Donald Trump.
Painting the Republican nominee as an unqualified presidential contender, the editorial board of The Houston Chronicle on Friday wrote they believe Trump is a ‘danger to the Republic.’
Meanwhile, the board praised Clinton for her vast experience and lifelong dedication to public service. (Source: Dailymail)
Put down your coffee before reading their next quote:
‘We could go on with issues, including her plans for sensible gun safety and for combatting (sic) terrorism – her policy positions are laid out in detail on her campaign web site – but issues in this election are almost secondary to questions of character and trustworthiness,’
“Sensible-gun safety.” Read: gun-grabbers. Does that position sell a lot of papers in Texas?
What about the rest of the comment: Character? Trustworthiness? Isn’t this the same Hillary Clinton who rigged her own party’s Primaries? And then immediately hired as Campaign Chair the woman who had to resign in shame?
Are they TRYING to discredit their newspaper?
They go on and bleat the DNC’s talking points, word-for-word about dark, dystopian Trump.
And the rational was that Hillary was experienced? Funny thing, the same newspaper, in 2008, endorsed Obama.
What does that earlier endorsement do to their rationale?
They either liked Obama’s Presidency, or they do not.
If they liked it, they have already endorsed ONE candidate with less political experience than Hillary, that they liked. Why not one more?
If they did NOT like Obama’s Presidency, and they endorsed him, what is their endorsement worth, really?