Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

About the San Diego Union-Tribune's Fiorina endorsement

Those of you who aren't regular readers of Times editorials but caught the San Diego Union-Tribune's endorsement Sunday of GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina may be under the false impression that we endorsed likewise. The Union-Tribune's editorial opens thusly:

Given that the observation has been forthcoming from such sources as the editorial pages of the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, it is not a partisan potshot to note that Democrat Barbara Boxer has been ineffective as a California  senator. After 18 years in the Senate, Boxer deserves the thanks of Californians for her service, but not reelection. As the Chronicle observed, “There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation.”

Though The Times' editorial in support of Boxer wasn't all sanguine about her reelection, noting briefly that her influence in the Senate is not commensurate with her seniority, the board by no means issued a half-hearted endorsement of the incumbent. The piece praised Boxer for being right on nearly every issue for which she has cast a vote -- the most important job of a senator -- and criticized Fiorina for reflecting the "doctrinaire conservatism that is ascendant in the Republican Party." The Union-Tribune could have at least noted that The Times endorsed Boxer and that the San Francisco Chronicle withheld its support from either candidate.

Misrepresentation aside, it's a bit cheap for a paper to make its case by selectively citing less politically conservative editorial pages. The Union-Tribune doesn't need The Times' help in persuading people whom to vote for -- especially not when we disagree.

-- Paul Thornton


Comments () | Archives (9)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Frank S

Babs, having helped ram costly and unpopular measures through Congress by questionable means, is now in big trouble come November. As Obama's popularity tanks, we understand Babs, Jerry and Obama are the incarnation of the old Know-Nothing party of the 1840s and 1850s. My they and their part rest in peace -- buried deeply under the valance of disgusted voters.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/10/3091102/endorsement-boxer-tenacious-on.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=5782955#Comments_Container#ixzz125p4gkUz

Jon Healey

@Frank -- Umm, what exactly is the parallel between the nativist Know-Nothings and the three Democrats you named? There isn't one.

Please, folks, if you're going to cite a historical entity, take a moment to learn what it stood for. Nazis, Socialists, Marxists, Know-Nothings -- they all stood for something. The same applies to "progressives," but I'm afraid that word has be so thoroughly co-opted by left-of-center folks who don't want to be called "liberals" that it's pointless to try to preserve its historical meaning.


This seems like a bit of an overreaction. They alluded to criticism of Boxer in other papers - including the Times - which is true. I don't think it's fair to say they misrepresented you and it's just adolescent to call them "cheap." In fact, why react to it at all? You made your endorsement and they made theirs. You don't need to police the Union-Tribune.

Pasquino Marforio

Well, while the LA Times is spoon feeding us bait and switch stories, CBO published the 2010 spending record.

Late last week the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary budget tallies for fiscal year 2010. Wonder why President Obama didn't hold a press conference on that?

Spending for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009's $3.52 trillion in the record books.

21.4% increase in spending in two years.

Despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion.

The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all "other activities" of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

The two year deficits, the 2010 total was $1.29 trillion, down slightly from $1.42 trillion. That's a two-year total of $2.7 trillion, or more than the entire amount during the Reagan Administration, when deficits were supposed to be ruinous.

Now these liberals tell us that deficits are the key to restoring prosperity. But all we have to show for spending nearly 25% of GDP for two years running is a growth rate of 1.7% and 9.6% unemployment.

Boxer voted for all this mess.


It's time for change. Boxer has had her time and there needs to be fresh thinking in the senate.

Kit-Bacon Gressitt

And the U-T pushes journalism another step toward its demise.

This is why I don't read the U-T, but thank you for the confirmation.

Tim Bowman

The U-T should have better explained themselves. Nonetheless, it was your endorsement of the erstwhile Sen. Boxer that was incorrect for reasons well documented in your own editorial.

Douglas Forasté

"Thusly," Paul? Tsk.

Jon Healey

@Tim -- Sen. Boxer isn't erstwhile yet! She'll be in office at least through the lame duck session. :-)



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...