Letters to the Editor

Readers respond to Statesman endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Editor’s Note: Today we are publishing excerpts of email comments and Letters to the Editor written in response to our endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president on Oct. 13.

John Ayres I am absolutely appalled that you endorsed Hillary Clinton. Idaho is a conservative state with conservative values. Hillary Clinton is for liberal values. She is for abortion. She is also for open borders. Healthcare costs are unbelievably expensive because of Obamacare and she wants to continue it. It needs to be repealed and replaced. She also wants major gun control. Does Idaho need more gun control? I think not! Do you know that liberal policies of the last eight years have 95 million people out of work?. Do you know that liberal policies have about 46 million people on food stamps? And Hillary wants to continue the same policies. . . .

Tom and Nancy Walton In this Red State of Idaho and in this perilous time in U.S. History, I commend the Editorial Board for endorsing Hillary Clinton in today's newspaper. I can imagine you will have many canceled subscriptions and angry letters over your stance, but you can count on us to continue to support a newspaper that makes such a good case for endorsing the only viable candidate for president. Hillary isn't perfect, in many ways, but she's the only clear choice to lead us with her many years of experience and her intellect. Trump is a danger to this country in so many ways and has no idea on how to lead this country. Thank you for your well-written article and your bravery in supporting the only candidate to vote for this coming Nov.8. God help us if she doesn't win.

Frank Smith I am not surprised the Idaho Statesman has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Actually, I thought the Statesman endorsed Clinton a long time ago after reading the blatantly biased and one sided review of the second Presidential debate. Let me be clear, I am no Trump fan. Actually he disgusts me. However, I would expect balanced and fair reporting, but after the second Presidential debate review it was painfully obvious where the Statesman's endorsement lay. Our choice for President next month is essentially which one would do the least harm. We need a new system to select Presidential candidates.

Steve Simpson The Statesman Editorial Board is be congratulated for such a thorough review and endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. You obviously did your homework. While far from being a perfect candidate, Hillary is very well qualified while Donald Trump continues to display more and more how unqualified and dangerous he is. It is very hard to understand how Rep. Raul Labrador and Gov. Butch Otter can continue to support Trump. Again, thank you to the Editorial Board for a job well done.

Michael Allen I am totally shocked by the Statesman's endorsement of Clinton for President! Imagine a liberal left wing newspaper giving such an endorsement! What I don't understand is how you can ignore all of the lies, obstruction of justice issues and total false statements by her. Her ideas of open borders and clemency for illegals can only hurt all true Americans in the job market and health care. Then there are the Supreme Court appointees that she would appoint that would further erode our Constitution. No, the real choice is Trump. He is the only one of the two that can actually lower taxes and create jobs. The federal government does not make jobs, it only takes our taxes.

Dennis L. George Thank you for making the honorable decision to endorse Hilliary Clinton. It is the only clear choice that can be made this year.

Tony Jensen Your choice to endorse a democratic candidate has floored me! The Idaho statesman is the media face for our state and should represent its majority opinion. Not your own personal minority opinion. It is not your personal blog or Facebook page. It should remain a cornerstone of Idahoan's lifestyle. If you find yourself wanting to change the social and political landscape of our state then maybe you should run for office instead of running our newspaper.

But if you choose to run for office in this state you should be warned that the likelihood of you holding office is slim to none. Have you forgotten that people who live in this state, choose to live here because they are highly conservative? People move to Idaho mostly because of who we are. This state holds predominately to traditional family values. We are church going, gun toting, small government, freedom loving American's! I am sure you would be welcomed with open arms to other states and their editor positions. Please line up with Idahoans’ or become something else...somewhere else.

Stephen A. Silver Thank you for your editorial . Clinton has run a serious campaign that addresses America's most important domestic and international concerns. Donald Trump, by contrast, has embodied misogyny, racism, xenophobia, psychopathic narcissism, stunning ignorance and shocking crudeness throughout his campaign. Among his myriad attacks on fundamental American values, Trump has belittled women, viciously attacked and smeared Mexican immigrants, coldly mocked prisoners of war and the physically disabled, and condemned the patriotic “Gold Star” parents of a heroic soldier solely because of their Islamic faith. Meanwhile, he praises murderous anti-American dictators in Russia, Syria and North Korea, and courts the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Aspects of his campaign recall the ABC Afterschool Special “The Wave,” about an experiment in understanding fascism. Trump's taped comments from 11 years ago boasting of using his celebrity status to sexually assault women are further confirmation of his fundamental character flaws.

John Lee Brown I am disappointed in your endorsement of Hillary, one of the most dishonest and untrustworthy persons running for president. I know you do not like Trump, however this gives you no reason to endorse anyone. She herself says that you cannot trust anything she says in public. Your reasoning because of her public stance on education and everything else is proven false because of this. I will continue my subscription to this paper, but will hold the editorial board in contempt unless they rescind this endorsement. There will be no reason to further read any editorial piece because the writers will have proven their disloyalty to the readers of the Statesman and proven their bias.

Joyce Taylor I was considering canceling my subscription when you kept raising the delivery rates even though the deliverer places the paper at my door without fail. Now your wise and bold choice of endorsing Clinton for president makes me realize that the enraged readers who will cancel without even reading your thoughtful editorial may be offset by those extra dollars I pay you. Keep my subscription! I may even order some extra ones for holiday gifts.

Michele Connelly We do not support Hillary Clinton and feel you made a bad decision to endorse her. Please refund our remaining weeks on our subscription.

Kerry Ellis Thank you for your brave decision to endorse Hillary Clinton today. I know this was hard to do in such a red state, and you'll get pushback, but it is the right thing to do for our country. I like to put my money where my mouth is, so I have just purchased a 52-week online subscription. Hopefully this will offset some of the losses you may get from people who will cancel their subscription as a result of your choice. Keep up the good work.

Dick Dickstein Who is responsible for the opinion piece in Friday's Statesman? How can anyone in their right mind endorse Hilary Clinton? She is a proven liar, she is a proven thief, she's running one of the biggest money laundering schemes in the history of this country. She want's to bring in thousands of Muslims and potential terrorists. She wants to take our guns so we can't defend ourselves and she is taking millions of dollars from foreign governments for who knows what and you endorse her for president? Is this a local opinion or does it come from your socialist corporate owners? It's bad enough that you print the editorial trash from the Washington Post, New York Times and Bloomberg, but you've finally gone too far with this endorsement.

Michael Margulies Dear Board Members, I want to complement you on your endorsement of Hillary Clinton today. Our country will be well served with her in the White House.

Rod Wallace Dear Editorial Board, I've just read as much of your two page ad as I could stomach and fail to grasp your logic for endorsing arguably the most despicable and criminal presidential candidate in the history of this country. I didn't vote for, nor am I what could be called an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, but shudder at the prospect of this woman being our next president. Knowing the extremist liberal roots of your parent company, I doubt any of you will lose any sleep over this misguided endorsement. There actually were a couple of routes you could have taken that would have sat much better with your readership. Either endorse no one or a third party candidate more consistent with the values of this state. It was a shame you chose this path.

Barbra Young Thank you so much for your article on why The Idaho Statesman has endorsed Hilary Clinton for president. Everything the article addressed makes so much sense. I agree with everything the article says and for one, I am glad The Idaho Statesman is brave enough to show common sense and endorse the person best suited to be our next president even though this is definitely a Republican state!

Gary Randel I do not agree with your endorsement of Clinton for president. A Clinton presidency means the continuation of Obama’s ever increasing government control over every day American lives; i.e. the growing loss of freedom. A Clinton presidency virtually ensures the near 100-year old progressive objective of fundamentally changing the original goals established by our nation’s founders. Moreover, you did not comment on the long-term impact of her probable choice(s) for Supreme Court justices who would remain on the court well beyond her term. I compare this voting choice dilemma to a choice I had as a rifle squad leader in Vietnam. Our company was assaulting a well-entrenched enemy force. Casualties were many and increasing. We were temporarily halted 100 yards or so from the enemy positions. My choices became: stay put and risk being shot or get up and move against the enemy and risk being shot. In other words, either try to save myself and my Marines and be labeled a coward in combat or assault the enemy. Obviously, there was no choice and I got up and moved; nothing heroic, but faced with a difficult choice I/we moved against the enemy. Trump is the difficult choice now.

Steve Bennett Dear Statesman Editorial Board, I want to thank you for publicly taking a stand in the 2016 presidential election. You have shown courage and wisdom by doing so, albeit not without some risk to yourselves in the current climate.I have had the great privilege to live in seven foreign countries, and work and travel in 48 more for more than 25 years. When people ask me where I am from, I still identify myself with the farm in Hagerman where I was born and raised. My experience while living outside the USA affirms your decision to endorse Clinton. Statements from friends around the world are best described as incredulous. People cannot understand how someone with Trump’s moral character could lead the USA. He is universally seen as a laughingstock, a buffoon and someone not to be trusted. Thank you again. We need to hear the truth always.

Robert J Heleniak Subject: Hillary Clinton. In 1996 William Safire in an essay entitled “Blizzard of Lies” identified Hillary Clinton as a congenital liar. In the essay he described the true nature of this person whom you pose as a no warts candidate in your endorsement. Can you trust such a well documented liar to stand up for the promises made in her present campaign? Remember, she said there is a public and private side to her ambitions. I realize Donald Trump is no angel. He makes many blowhard statements but recently leaked sexual scandals hardly holds a candle to Bill Clinton and his impeachment and by extension to her. So please review Safire's essay for it reveals so much that has been forgotten since 1996, and prophesizes so much more of what has come to be.

Ron Fry Your editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton and the reasons why was by far the most cogently reasoned, detailed analysis I have seen. I applaud your editorial board for its ability and intellectual heft, not because of who you endorsed, but why.

Jeanne McTigue How Disgusting and unprofessional of the Statesman to headline: “Led us to a clear choice: Clinton.” You list all the things she says and now you should outline all the e-mails that are coming to the forefront that show what kind of lying, dishonest person she is, along with all the awful things she did to women when her husband did 90 percent worse things than Trump is accused of . . .How about showing both sides of her and stop only pouncing on Trump’s past deeds, which aren’t all proven? Tell what he has accomplished and plans to do when he is elected. Come on, do the job you should do.

Larry Levy You presented a clear and obvious case against endorsing Trump, but gave Hillary a weak pass on the honesty issue. Character should matter. I get it that you largely champion issues of the left, but both the major party candidates have serious character flaws. I’ll be up front; I am voting for Gary Johnson. As you probably know he has been endorsed by a few newspapers, to include the “Chicago Tribune.” I can understand why you didn't give Gov. Johnson your thumbs up, despite him having more executive government experience and ability to work across the aisle than Clinton or Trump, based on single digit polling, but supporting a candidate with such a record of deceit and lies, just because you hold a liberal agenda so dear, is a disservice to your readers. Clinton is Richard Nixon 2.0. You should have used the space of the endorsement this time to make no endorsement or remind your readers the time has come to support an end to the two party only system, and have at least mentioned Johnson.

William Spaulding Your newspaper has every right to endorse Hillary for President, when you consider that all of your editorial board members are very liberal writers writing for a publication in a very conservative state and city. But it's just my hope and prayer that when Donald Trump becomes president — then when he does some very good things — then I hope you say some good and positive things about him, at least once in a while, rather than consistently trashing him. Because many of us conservatives are very sure that he'll single-handedly stimulate the economy because of his very favorable taxation policies towards individuals and corporations. And his immigration policies will allow employers to pay their employees a better wage, once the illegal aliens in this country leave this country, and we can worry about taking care of our own.

Jill Fay I applaud you for doing your research. I am pleased to see a well thought out article with facts and an adult approach. Virtually every person I speak with has not done any fact checking and bases their decision on sound bites from entertainment shows and extremely brief tidbits on the television news. I just watched a “Frontline” episode on Clinton and Trump in a timeline approach starting with their childhood on into adulthood. It gave me a greater insight into both candidates. Your article has done the same for me by focusing specifically on the issues that matter to the voters.

Roger Tebo Your editorial in yesterday's Depth section, naming Hillary Clinton as your choice for president, was nothing less than a hit piece on Trump, in which you misrepresented much of the former Secretary of State’s record, and her “experience” while totally ignoring obvious pluses for a Trump presidency. Whoever actually penned this piece for the “board” provided the straw that broke the camel's back, as for being a subscriber to your publication. I cancelled my subscription, and spoke with numerous others who echoed my sentiments.

Karen Reynolds I want to express my admiration for The Statesman's Editorial Board for endorsing Hillary Clinton, and for their courage in doing so in such a Republican state. In what has to be the most vicious, divisive presidential election that voters have had to endure, your thoughtful consideration of the candidates' qualifications was clear and respectful. You will probably hear a lot of negative responses, but I honestly feel that as an American, it is time to put our country ahead of party politics. The very stability of our republic is at stake and newspapers like The Statesman have so much influence. That First Amendment comes with it a tremendous amount of responsibility to act responsibly and fairly and your board boldly demonstrated that with this endorsement. Thank you very much.

  Comments