Editorial |
Which candidate do we endorse for president? We're not the marrying type

During the 2016 election, only 20 papers endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy. Hillary Clinton received 243 endorsements from daily newspapers. Just six weekly papers endorsed Trump’s first run, while Clinton received support from 148. However, the endorsements had no measurable effect on the outcome. Clinton, who lost the election in the Electoral College, had 2.9 million more votes nationwide than her opponent, a margin of 2.1% of total votes cast.

"In 2016, nearly every newspaper in America endorsed Hillary Clinton. Obviously, the endorsements of Clinton did not lead to her victory, but it was a reflection of a widespread belief that Trump was unfit for office," David Mindich told Temple Now. Mindich is a professor of journalism at Temple’s Klein College of Media and Communication.

Last week, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, two of America’s most prominent newspapers, broke with the longstanding tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate. The owners of both newspapers forbade their editorial staffs from selecting and endorsing the candidate they deemed best suited to lead the United States.

Newspaper endorsements of political candidates date back to before the 1830s. Newspapers were once partisan tools owned or funded by politicians themselves to disseminate political views and give endorsements. That changed with the rise of the independent press.

"After the commercial press in the United States was born in the 1830s, newspapers started to become independent. The leading newspaper of the so-called penny press era was the New York Herald, run by an editor named James Gordon Bennett," Mindich said. "From the inception of his paper to the American Civil War, Bennett endorsed candidates from both major parties. Endorsements became a regular feature of independent American newspapers."

Melita Garza, associate professor and director of graduate studies in journalism at the University of Illinois, said, "There is little empirical evidence that these presidential endorsements swayed readers to vote one way or another."

There is speculation that C-suite executives feared backlash and subscription cancellations from readers angered by a particular endorsement. Garza notes that journalists on the ground are ultimately the ones who suffer.

"The only people hurt by the cancellation were the journalists, who probably will face another round of layoffs," she said.

However, another likely reason for the abstinence from endorsements is the increasingly hostile climate created by conservative politicians and their social media agents. It is rare, if not unheard of, for liberal politicians to threaten media outlets or employees. Meanwhile, Trump has made numerous threats aimed at journalists and publishers. The fear of retaliation if he takes office runs deep not only among the billionaire owners of America’s largest news organizations but also among independent community publications that challenge or criticize him.

In 2022, at a Texas rally, Trump said he would jail reporters and “marry them to a prisoner” if they did not reveal confidential sources for stories he didn’t approve—a clear violation of the First Amendment. He repeated this stance weeks later at a rally in Ohio.

While newsrooms and editorial boards are often operated as separate departments or even entities within a newspaper, readers may not understand the distinction between an editorial and a news article.

News articles state facts, answering the questions of who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how. The purpose is to provide a clear, accurate account of an event as observed by the reporter or witnesses.

Editorials (and editorial columns) express opinions and viewpoints—right or wrong—by the publication’s editorial board. The objective is to present a perspective or stance and persuade readers toward that stance. Commentaries have the same purpose but are written by individuals not employed by the paper.

All that said, the editorial staff at The Sentinel agrees that the best candidate to lead the United States into the future would be one not leading a party that threatens the bodily autonomy of women, the freedom of the press, and economic recovery now in full effect. However, we won’t be endorsing either candidate because, as they say, we aren’t the marrying type.


Commentary |Trump's second assassination attempt is shocking, but attempts on presidents' lives are not rare in US history

by Shannon Bow O'Brien
    The University of Texas at Austin



Former President Donald Trump survived his second assassination attempt on Sept. 15, 2024, marking the latest chapter in a long history book. Presidential assassination attempts, whether successful or not, are fairly commonplace in American history.

There have been 45 men elected president since the country’s founding. And 40% of them have experienced known attempts on their lives. Four presidents – Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy – have been assassinated.

Image: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay
While Trump and Theodore Roosevelt were both former presidents when they were shot, Ronald Reagan was injured while in office, with a would-be assassin almost ending Reagan’s life in 1981.

Thirteen others – Andrew Jackson, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden – have had known plots or failed attempts to end their lives.

Many were subject to multiple attempts, and it is likely the public was never informed of other attempts upon them or other presidents.

Presidents symbolize the ideals of ourselves as Americans. They often act as the physical embodiment of our country, their political party and its values. When individuals are unhappy with the United States or its policies, some choose to express their opinions in violent ways. Those who choose to assassinate a president inadvertently humanize the very presidents they want to kill.



A common thread

Every presidential assassination or attempt has been made with a firearm. With the exception of Gerald Ford’s two attempted assassins, all the perpetrators have been male.

This includes Trump’s two assailants, men who were once enthralled by but seemingly grew disenchanted with aspects of modern politics.

The Secret Service thwarted an armed man hiding at a Trump golf course in Palm Beach, Florida, on Sept. 15. The Secret Service fired at the person, who fled in a car before he was apprehended and arrested.

This came just two months after Trump was wounded at a Pennsylvania rally on July 13 by a young man who attempted to kill Trump with a gunshot to the head.

Many presidential assassination attempts seem incoherent to anyone except the perpetrator.

A man named Charles Guiteau killed Garfield in 1881 because he wanted to be awarded a patronage position in government.

John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln as part of a larger plot attempting to create chaos to help reignite the “Southern cause” and support for slavery. On the same night Lincoln was killed in 1865, his secretary of state, William Seward, was attacked but survived.

At the same time, the plot was for then-Vice President Andrew Johnson to also be killed by another man, George Atzerodt, who instead got drunk and threw the knife in a gutter.

Booth and his co-conspirators hoped that these politicians’ almost simultaneous deaths would throw the Union into disarray, with an unclear path of succession. Their plan fell apart, and with Johnson alive, the nation’s clear path of presidential succession remained intact.

A near miss

Half a century later, while former President Theodore Roosevelt was campaigning for a third presidential term in 1912, he was shot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Though he was shot at almost point-blank range, Roosevelt was, in a way, saved by his poor eyesight and long-winded nature. Roosevelt had a 50-page speech folded in his pocket, as well as his steel eyeglass case. Both items slowed the bullet enough that it just entered his chest but not deeper than the muscle.

Roosevelt famously proceeded to give a 90-minute speech before leaving for the hospital.

One of the closest comparisons to Trump’s two recent assassination attempts is when two women tried to kill President Gerald Ford in September 1975.

Both Trump and Ford were the targets of well-publicized assassination attempts within a short period of time, and both were targeted by individuals with logically unclear motives.

Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme, a one-time member of the Manson family, a well-known cult in the 1970s, attempted to kill Ford in order, she claimed, to save California redwood trees.

At the time, the Environmental Protection Agency was warning people about worsening smog’s effects on the environment, leading her to believe assassination was the only way to preserve the trees. Fromme dressed entirely in red, went to Sacramento where the president was visiting, aimed and fired at him within a 2-foot range.

Except the gun didn’t fire.

Bystanders heard a click, since she had not put a round in the chamber, likely because she did not know much about guns. After that first attempted shot, Secret Service intervened. Later, Fromme claimed she did not want to shoot the president.

Seventeen days later, on Sept. 22 in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore shot at Ford from about 40 feet away and missed. Her second shot missed as well, this time because a bystander, Oliver Sipple, grabbed the gun, forcing the shot to go wide, injuring a taxi driver.

Finally, Reagan survived an assassination attempt by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981. Hinckley was obsessed with the popular film “Taxi Driver” and, in particular, the character played by actress Jodie Foster.

He believed that if he could impress Foster, she would date him. As Reagan left the Washington Hilton hotel, Hinckley fired six shots in two seconds. One shot deflected off the car and into the president’s left side, hitting his lung. One of the funnier lines Reagan would later repeat was born that day, when he looked at doctors prepping for surgery and said, “I just hope you’re Republicans.” One doctor replied, “Today, Mr. President, we’re all Republicans.”

The best and worst of us

Throughout history, American presidents and occasionally candidates have been targeted by gunmen and other potential attackers to express their unhappiness about the government. The rationales for these assassins’ actions vary from simply chaos to delusions anointing the assassin, or would-be assassin, a heroic main character.

Presidential assassinations reflect the best and the worst of people simultaneously. The violence itself shows the worst of society, but Americans often seem at their best in the aftermath. Like Reagan’s surgeons once recognized, politics should never supplant humanity or be more valued than a person’s health and safety.The Conversation


Shannon Bow O'Brien is an Associate Professor of Instruction at The University of Texas at Austin.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Guest Commentary |
For better or worse

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


Words are easier than actions. For example, “for better, for worse.” Couples traditionally say these words when they marry. They mean the words at the time. They have no idea what they are saying.

No one can really know what they are saying because they are clueless what the future will bring. Sticking together in marriage is easier when it’s all “for better”. Often life changes direction and it seems everything becomes “for worse.”

Financial difficulties, troubled children, aging parents, life failures, addictions, personality disorders and sickness all have a way of cooling the marital flame.

When a couple first marries everything is about love and nothing else matters. However, eventually everyone faces problems. Sometimes they come early in life and sometimes not until the later years of life. Make no mistake, if you and your spouse live long enough you will face difficulties that will mentally and physically push you to and beyond your limits.

We have to grasp the fact that no matter who you live with there will come a time when you will be a caregiver or need someone to take care of you. The only way to avoid this is to die while you are still physically and mentally independent. There is some kind of weird blessing about just falling over dead or not waking up one morning. It’s a shock to those left behind but you avoid the nursing home and some of the crippling disabilities that eventually happen in life.

None of us want to just fall over dead during our active years. We all want to live to a 100 and then just suddenly move over into heaven. This may be the way you will go and maybe you won’t. None of us know how our lives will end. I suppose it’s best that we don’t know.

If you are blessed with a mate, reach a mutual understanding early on that you are going to see each other through the tough times. It might be all on you to do the caregiving and that’s never easy but it’s easier than being the one inflicted with the illness. If you are the caregiver you can get some rest and restore. The person who is sick never gets a break.

Sadly, some people can’t hold out and give up. People are human beings and not machines. People wear down and are often unable to cope when sickness and troubles are more than they can handle. Try to not be condemning of these people as you are not the one living their lives.

If two people can mutually hang tight through the “for worse” period of life they can help each other to discover a little more “better” even during the very worst of times.

For more insights into this column please read First Corinthians chapter 13 from the Bible. Keep in mind that hard times are not easy times but you can find joy and peace by seeing yourself and your mate through the “worse” times of life.


-----------------------------------------------------------

He is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Commentary |
Free tax filing: A crucial step toward unrigging our economy

from Susan Harley

Each year many Americans pay a steep cost when doing their taxes. It’s not just the money people shell out to use software to file taxes online, but also the time spent and the stress that comes with worrying an honest mistake will be held against them.

Luckily, change is in the air this spring. Eligible filers in a dozen states will finally have a true public option this tax season: a new free, online, mobile-friendly software from the IRS called Direct File.

Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich/PEXELS

Over the next several weeks the Direct File pilot will be ramping up in the states where it’s being offered: Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

Available in both English and Spanish, the new software pilot is starting small and will only be available to people with simple taxes who file with only limited types of incomes, credits, and deductions. While the Direct File tool won’t be available to everyone right away, it’s a crucial step toward unrigging our economy and protecting people’s pocketbooks.


While there has technically been a Free File program at the IRS for decades, it has not lived up to its promise.

Buoyed by funding the IRS received though the Inflation Reduction Act, the Direct File pilot is another example of the Biden administration’s commitment to tackle junk fees that chip away at people’s economic wellbeing and to foster a government that better serves the American people.

Direct File is also a recognition that struggling families shouldn’t have to pay money they can’t afford just to do their civic duty. The tool aims to make it easier for folks to get the refund they’re owed and to address the problem of one in five eligible recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit not claiming it.

While there has technically been a Free File program at the IRS for decades, it has not lived up to its promise. Only a tiny percentage of eligible filers — about 2 percent — use it. And there was a high-profile data breach where corporate partners in the program shared sensitive tax information with Meta (formerly called Facebook) and Google.

Unsurprisingly, Intuit, the parent company of TurboTax, has not been taking this budding threat to its behemoth earnings laying down. It’s poured a record amount into its lobbying, almost a million dollars in just the past three months.

But it’s going to take more than lobbying and a Super Bowl ad to revive Intuit’s tarnished image.


This St. Patrick’s Day, some lucky filers will find a pot of gold under the rainbow — around $150 or more on average back in their pockets that they didn’t have to give to a greedy corporation just to use software.

Intuit entered into a $141 million settlement last year to resolve claims that it steered low-income customers to paid products when they were eligible to use free services. And the Federal Trade Commission ruled in January that the company’s advertising about free tax prep was deceptive.

The Direct File tool is expected to be live to the public in those 12 states in early to mid-March. That means that this St. Patrick’s Day, some lucky filers will find a pot of gold under the rainbow — around $150 or more on average back in their pockets that they didn’t have to give to a greedy corporation just to use software to help them file their taxes online.

Direct File is the first brick in the road to return-free filing that many of our international peers enjoy, where they simply approve their pre-calculated return prepared by the government.

Like a garden, though, Direct File will only flourish with care and attention. Let’s make sure it doesn’t die on the vine! Help spread the word, check your eligibility at directfile.irs.gov, and visit act.citizen.org/page/62332/petition/  to get reminded when it’s go time for Direct File in your state.


About the author ~
is the managing director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Editorial |
Americans are losing the damn minds

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to live under a dictatorship, even if for a day?

An article on the right-leaning website called The Hill published a story yesterday citing a survey from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and YouGov that said, "74 percent of Republican voters said it would be a good idea if Trump follows through on his remarks in which he said he would be a dictator only on the first day of his second term." According to the survey, only 26 percent of Republicans polled, it would be a bad thing.

At least independent voters, dangling from a fourth-story balcony, still have at least a palm on the ledge of sanity. Sixty-five percent said it would be a bad idea as opposed to the 36% who were okay with it.

Pardon me.

When did democracy and the pursuit of quiet life, liberty, and justice go out of vogue? Why are so many conservative voters today ready to wipe their arses with that single-ply paper from 1789 that all but guaranteed their freedom from oppression, the right express themselves, and established a clear path to air their grievances?

Tell me why they spit the largest, thickest, puss-filled loogie they can muster on the graves of their ancestors, many of whom fought and died for our great nation to preserve its ideas and greatness.

A large chunk of the American population is losing its mind. Logic and critical thinking seemingly are becoming a rare commodity. One can make a convincing argument, although admittedly anecdotal at this point, that multiple COVID infections have damaged the prefrontal cortex of a large segment of society and possibly reduced their mental capacity to that of a hamster.

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to live under a dictatorship, even if for a day?

No doubt those who approve of Donald Trump (or anyone else for that matter) having absolute power believe they would be immune to any of the decrees from his 'one day' dictatorial rule. Yes, many of their fellow Americans will suffer, and they are cool with that. What they fail to realize is that this type of power is an infection that can easily corrupt.

English Catholic historian and politician John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This one-hitter of absolute power would be opium to Trump and those who successfully manipulate him. One day would turn into a few, and later into a week, then a month, and eventually into years. Quietly, those who thought they would not be in the crosshairs would find themselves the targets of oppression and discrimination.

If having a dictatorial government is so great, why do over a million people a year immigrate, legally or otherwise, to the United States from countries with authoritarian rule?

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to live under a dictatorship, even if for a day?



More Sentinel Stories



Photo Galleries


Monticello Basketball vs Seneca
January 11, 2025
30 Photos

January 11, 2025
37 Photos

January 11, 2025
31 Photos

January 4, 2025
42 Photos

December 14, 2024
39 Photos

December 7, 2024
27 Photos