I think you underestimate the significance of the Detroit News' non-endorsement by dismissing the paper as "wimps." Of course they are wimps, because leaving the White House vacant for the next four years is not an option. But that misses the point.
As a Detroit native and 27-year resident of the metro area, I can tell you that everyone expects the News to rubber-stamp the Republican candidate for every election, just as the Detroit Free Press invariably rubber-stamps the Democratic candidate. Further, unlike some cities where either the right-wing or left-wing paper is viewed as a "rag" with lesser stature than the other, both of these papers are viewed as serious and credible, and their editorial preferences are a matter of long-established record. Every literate person in and around Detroit knows this.
As the News editorial acknowledges:
"This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years. "
I am not a big believer in the power of newspaper endorsements, and I think if both papers had followed their predictable patterns, almost no one would have taken notice. But for the News to refuse to endorse Bush is, at least to the local community, shocking. This is a man-bites-dog story and it is a huge development.
