Des Moines Register to announce endorsements later today.

[DRV45N05]

According to Drudge.

My prediction, based on past history, is they'll endorse Edwards and Romney. On the Democratic side, they have almost always gone with the most progessive and/or anti-establishment candidate, and they endorsed Edwards back in 2004. Their history of Democratic endorsements includes Mondale in 84, Simon in 88, Bradley in 2000, and Edwards in 04.

On the Republican side, they don't typically like to rock the boat too much, and they typically endorse the guy who wins. They endorsed Dole in both 88 and 96, and they endorsed Bush in 2000. I'm thinking they'll go for the candidate they feel is the best combination of most "conservative" and with the best chance to win, and they'll judge that to be Romney.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

they ever hear of being objecvtive? How the HELL can a newspaper that covers POLITICS endorse someone? Fuck them

[DRV45N05]

Every newspaper endorses.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Every newspaper endorses.

Why? They lose all credibility when they do that.

[winston_blade]

Why? They lose all credibility when they do that.

No one believes that they newspaper people don't have an opinion. I'd rather have their stances known than not known.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No one believes that they newspaper people don't have an opinion. I'd rather have their stances known than not known.

They shouldn't have an opinion.

[dspectre]

They shouldn't have an opinion.

I understand where you are coming from. It's fine they have an opinion, but for old media to come off as impartial and then have an opinion is disingenuous to say the least.

[mrd]

The opinion of the paper is irrelevant; their job is to provide unbiased perspective through facts and comparisons. Any media source that expresses an endorsement is indirectly endorsing bias. It's deplorable.

[therealjjj77]

From an inside scoop, there are good odds they will endorse Ron Paul. They hate the Iowa GOP and this is a way they feel they can "stick it to 'em".

[DrNoZone]

No one believes that they newspaper people don't have an opinion. I'd rather have their stances known than not known.

Agreed.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

From an inside scoop, there are good odds they will endorse Ron Paul. They hate the Iowa GOP and this is a way they feel they can "stick it to 'em".

Yeah, right lol. I bet Mitt Romney paid them off.

[miamiist]

They shouldn't have an opinion.

That's an outrageous statement. There's absolutely no reason why a media organization cannot make their preference for a candidate known, just as there is absolute nothing wrong (and everything right!) with a middle school teacher telling her students something like, "Our country is going to war against (insert country here) tomorrow. My personal opinion is that we should not, and this is why." It's called democratic debate, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's an outrageous statement. There's absolutely no reason why a media organization cannot make their preference for a candidate known, just as there is absolute nothing wrong (and everything right!) with a middle school teacher telling her students something like, "Our country is going to war against (insert country here) tomorrow. My personal opinion is that we should not, and this is why." It's called democratic debate, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Why should there even be a middle school? And that's not right to do. Journalism is about being objective; I hope they lose many subscribers, everytime they pull this crap. Might as well be the Mitt Romney paper

[Zydeco]

The MSM is part of the same corrupt system they're supposed to be reporting on. Their endorsement is meaningless, as is the endorsement of other corrupt politicians.

It's another of the many things that's changing. Endorsements like this used to be seen as validating; I think they're increasingly going to be seen as corrupt back-scratching, which is precisely what they are.

Ron Paul has the endorsement of the people. The moribund establishment, in all its forms, can keep giving itself awards and endorsements and attaboys all it wants. It means nothing.

[mrd]

Journalism is about being objective; I hope they lose many subscribers, everytime they pull this crap. Might as well be the Mitt Romney paper
Exactly. They are sacrificing subscribers for this.

[TexMac]

they ever hear of being objecvtive? How the HELL can a newspaper that covers POLITICS endorse someone? Fuck them

There's a difference between the news side and the opinion side. The editorial (opinion) side is the one that does endorsements. It is not supposed to affect the news operation.

For example, the Wall Street Journal is neocon editorially, but the news department is supposed to be objective.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Let them try to feed us. Ron Paul will receive the endorsement of the American people.

[OReich]

Guys, I think news should be openly biased. I think that no news service can ever be truly objective, they just try to be by giving face time to two dominant views. My favorite example of this is when CNN did a five-minute report on whether or not we should raise the minimum wage. 90% of people would find it objective, but I didn't; in fact, it completely ignored the supply/demand arguments I believe. So is that unbiased?

I think the best arguments are given by people who openly endorse a position. Then, for a full story, listen to multiple news outlets that endorse different views. Do you think the media is grilling the CIA as much as they should be right now over the destroyed tapes? I don't think they are, but you can be sure that Air America is giving them their due. Similarly, we have a local libertarian/conservative paper here called the Liberty Sentinel. If all you read was the Liberty Sentinel and all you listened to was Air America, you'd be almost 100% informed. (I'm not leftist at all, but I trust Air America to tell me the complete story on their views)

CNN? No matter how hard they try (and that's not getting into their BS for headlines), they can't be unbiased, they're just showing both major party faces, as if that truly tells us everything. No one can tell us everything, no one can perfectly know what's important to give time to and what isn't. Let people honestly make arguments, and we can listen to all of the other arguments.

I personally think there are four ideologies in America right now, and I'm saying this based on the views of civilians (as I currently see them, maybe you disagree), not on politicians; next to them, I list news sources that I think represent them (just as popularly known examples, I don't actually know good sources).
1. Liberals- big government, anti-war (unlike their political reprsentatives)- Air America
2. Conservatives/Libertarians (us)- small government, anti-war- Honestly, I don't know of any popular source we have; I guess we all have our favorite websites we turn to.
3. Neocons- big government, pro-war- Fox News, Weekly Standard
4. Christian Right (not a knock on Christians at all)-social positions, primarily- I don't know any sources for them.

If you listened/read/watched the major sources representing all four of those views, you'd be really well educated on the major arguments going on in politics. Instead, we get people trying to give the complete story, and in the end giving crappy summaries, and DEFINITELY never hitting Mr. I Poll Three Percent But I Have A Solution For America, but rather focusing on the presidential candidates who poll high from the beginning, which means the presidential candidates who happen to have been making headlines for years already.

On a side note that isn't entirely relevant: Does anyone remember when they first heard of Barack Obama? It was a news story that goes like "Have you heard of Barack Obama? Well this senator from Illinois might be your President in four years!" What a f*cked up system we have...

[DrRich]

I could give a rats ass who they endorse.
like someone said earlier, fukk them.

[DRV45N05]

From an inside scoop, there are good odds they will endorse Ron Paul. They hate the Iowa GOP and this is a way they feel they can "stick it to 'em".

The Des Moines Register likes:

1) Democrats who are big-government and redistributionist; and
2) Republicans who "are pragmatists and who demonstrate they are willing to compromise." I mean, this was a newspaper who, in their endorsement of Bush in 2000, wrote:


"As governor of a sprawling, multiethnic state, Bush has demonstrated a remarkable ability to bring diverse people together. He cultivates an open style of leadership, welcoming different points of view. ...

"He speaks with conviction of not wanting to leave anyone behind in America. He expresses more concern for low-and moderate-income Americans than do most of his Republican rivals. ...

"If Bush becomes president, we probably would disagree with many specifics of his programs. But we judge him to be a leader with good and decent instincts."

Ron Paul certainly does not fit their definition of "pragmatic" and "willing to compromise" in part 2. Mitt Romney does.