[quote_center]An Editorial[/quote_center]
by David Miller
Editor and Publisher
I have been asked many times over the years, “Who should I vote for?” and, “Why doesn’t Loveland Magazine make endorsements?”
My answer has always been, “Because I don’t believe newspapers should tell people who or what to vote for. If they are to get involved in elections at all it should only be giving voters information so they can make up their own mind.”
I personally no longer vote and haven’t for quite a few years. A few years ago, I took the additional step of not only not going to the polls on election day; I de-registered, lest I awake some morning and feel an incredible urge like I might do this November 8. I wanted no horse in any race that I can jump on at the last moment, pretending that what Loveland Magazine published leading up to an election was completely balanced.
Mike Allen, spent six years at The Washington Post, was Time magazine’s former White House correspondent, and now the Chief White House Correspondent for Politico, he wrote in 2008 “I decided to stop voting when I became the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper. I wanted to keep a completely open mind about everything we covered and not make a decision, even in my own mind or the privacy of the voting booth, about who should be president or mayor, for example.”
Allen continued, “People make all kinds of inaccurate assumptions about the personal views of reporters. I can always say: I don’t vote — and you can look it up.”
However, when It came across my desktop that The Atlantic was making only their third endorsement of a presidential candidate since 1860, I decided to suspend my self–righteousness.
The Atlantic says what I want to say about Donald Trump, but with eloquence that I cannot muster. I admire their eloquence, logic, reasoning and motive.Therefore;
[quote_center]Loveland Magazine endorses The Atlantic’s endorsement[/quote_center]
[quote_center]Against Donald Trump[/quote_center]
For the third time since The Atlantic’s founding, the editors endorse a candidate for president.
The case for Hillary Clinton.
In part The Atlantic endorsement explains:
“We ‘should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.’
Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.
In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”
I encourage readers to read all of The Atlantic endorsement…
[quote_center]Against Donald Trump[/quote_center]
