Some things are a given each election year. In beautiful San Diego, the weather will be perfect, there will be a slight ocean breeze, and the Republican presidential nominee will get the endorsement of the San Diego Tribune.
That’s why it was big news when the historically conservative newspaper trumpeted in its Friday edition:
“This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Hillary Clinton. She’s the safe choice for the U.S. and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike.”
In its endorsement, the Tribune envisioned a dire Trump presidency that “ruins U.S. trustworthiness” and has “an open enemies list.”
“Imagine that,” the editorial says. “Imagine President Trump.”
Many Republicans across the country are now asking, “What is happening?!”
A Wall Street Journal editorial endorsed Clinton on Thursday, predicting Donald Trump would be “the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.”
The top circulated paper in the country, USA Today, has never taken a side in a presidential race, but this week called Trump “erratic, ill-equipped, prejudiced, reckless and a serial liar.”
The Arizona Republic had never endorsed a Democrat in its 126 year history but they endorsed Clinton this week saying, “Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president, Donald Trump does not.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer had not endorsed a Democrat in 100 years, but endorsed Clinton, slamming Trump as a “clear and present danger” to the country.
In Texas, the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle both endorsed the Democrat for the first time in decades. The Morning News blasted Trump, saying his “values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear, exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny, to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best.” The Chronicle wasn’t any nicer, saying Trump “is a danger to the Republic.”
Back in San Diego, the Tribune editorial summarized Trump as “vengeful, dishonest and impulsive” while Clinton has “the experience, background and relationships with world leaders that we need in a president.”
One this is certain, nothing is uniting conservative editorial boards across the country more than utter dislike for the billionaire reality TV host from New York City.