The Arizona Republic Does Something It Has not Done in over 120 years

posted by Breanna Khorrami 0 comments
The Arizona Republic Does Something It Has not Done in over 120 years - Citizen Slant

The Arizona Republic Editorial Board did something on Tuesday that it has not done in the paper’s 126 year history.

Frankin Delano Roosevelt ran and won four presidential elections, and the Arizona Republic never sided with him. When John F. Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon, the Arizona Republic endorsed Nixon. And when Lyndon B. Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964 when the country was bitterly divided over the Civil Rights Act, the Arizona Republic backed the Republican nominee.

In 1988 it endorsed George H.W. Bush when he won in 1988 and endorsed him when he lost to then Governor Bill Clinton. It backed George W. Bush both times, and John McCain and Mitt Romney when they lost to President Obama.

On Tuesday, for the first time, it endorsed the Democratic nominee for president. In doing so, the paper noted its “deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.”

For the Arizona Republic, what makes this year different than any other since 1890 is that the Republican nominee “is not conservative and he is not qualified.” That says a whole lot considering the candidates that the paper has backed in the past.

First, the paper points out that the United States both domestically and internationally needs a “steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting.” The Editorial Board then states “Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not. Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not.”

As with other conservative papers who have endorsed Clinton, they acknowledge that Clinton “has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians. The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity.” This is a crucial confession — that Hillary Clinton has been the subject of a ‘witch hunt’ for decades and has had the strength to persevere this unprecedented attack, and that no one could have survived it.

Second, the paper points out that whatever flaws that Clinton may have, they “pale” in comparison to Trump’s.


The thoughts and opinions expressed here are solely those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Slant.


You may also like

Leave a Comment