The Predictable Tulsa World

Today's Tulsa World carried an endorsement for George W. Bush for president. The endorsement would carry some weight were it not for its predictability. Those with a long memory know that the World hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since Franklin Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936.

Why would a newspaper that is often regarded by conservatives as a "Democrat newspaper" have such a predictable record of going for the likes of Nixon, Dole, and Goldwater? How could it be that a "balanced" newspaper has not found at least one Democrat in almost 70 years to be most suitable to lead the country?

I wish someone at the World would explain what's behind this partisan presidential predictability to me. Since 1936?