Campaign Shocker! Times Endorses Democrat!
For the two people in the world who might had any doubt, rest assured: the New York Times has not, repeat, NOT endorsed the Republican candidate.
I know, I know…you probably had to sit down after reading that. Let’s take a peek:
…The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
On second thought, let’s leave it there…I just ate supper, and it’s starting to come back up. I don’t need to read the rationale for a foregone conclusion, and I doubt you do, either…the Times is a damn good paper, in terms of its journalism – but editorially, it’s been about as knee-jerk anti-Bush as The Nation or Mother Jones…any paper that blames the current financial crisis soley on the Bush Administration is worthy only of my contempt, and yours…
Interesting. Here is what they said during the primary season:
” The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.”
Unqualified then, qualified now – what a turnaround!!!
Its non-political journalism maybe.
Reports yesterday that the 25 million the Salzburger family takes out in dividends might have to be be cut. So sad.
They are not asking my advice but if they would not be so biased against the GOP, maybe a few GOPers would subscribe. But I guess the revenues are so good that they don’t need anymore subscribers.
The only bright spot from our current economic problems that the luxury goods advertised in the NYT will have to cut back their advertising/get cheaper rates. Which accelerates the decline in profits at the NYT.
1) The editorial addresses Steve’s issue towards the end:
“(Fixing the problems inherited from the Bush administration) and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries.”
2) I don’t think the endorsement is as much “a foregone conclusion” as simply the reflection of the fact that every major newspaper (not to mention the electorate) considers Obama to be the better choice. If there is a case to be made that McCain should be President, what is it? I’ve heard a lot about William Ayres and pigs with lipstick, but I’ve yet to hear McCain or anyone else give a cogent argument why he should be elected President. Have you?
But what they say is true now should have been abundantly clear then given the length of the campaign to that point. So, I will take their change of heart as a sign of their incompetence in analyzing the candidates. On the other hand, perhaps they are simply enamored with front-runners… nah, that’s not fair, I take it back.
If the Times endorsement is accepted as an argument for Obama, then what does the McCain endorsement list mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_presidential_campaign_endorsements
My cogent argument for McCain: he’s not Obama.
Here’s an argument I find compelling, do you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Not surprisingly, I disagree with Krauthammer. I would be grateful if someone would ring a bell if he is ever right about anything.
1) The notion that Obama is the “most liberal” person to run for President is untrue (more liberal than McGovern? Mondale? Stevenson? For that matter: FDR?).
2) McCain is erratic and has been extremely erratic in his campaign “suspension” for the financial crisis. He changed his outlook on a daily basis. His pronouncements on immigration and taxes – as well as the economy – are diametrically opposed to what they were not long ago. He is the poster boy for inconstancy.
3) William Ayres has nothing to do with anything.
4) Obama is not a “foreign policy novice” and the combined foreign policy experience of Obama and Biden far exceeds that of McCain and Palin.
5) Cherry picking a handful of Obama ads which were false does not refute the fact that on balance, McCain has run a far, far dirtier campaign than Obama, or any other Presidential candidate in recent memory.
6) I would say that Joe Biden or Richard Lugar is the “most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate,” not John McCain.
7) If McCain had the “best instincts” on foreign policy, he would not have been a gung-ho advocate of invading Iraq.
What Krauthammer ignores, of course, is George Bush, Sarah Palin, and the economy. Unless Krauthammer chooses to defend the copious disasters of the past eight years, he has an obligation to explain why we should elect someone whose policies are not significantly different than George Bush’s. He should tell us why we should not be afraid of a Palin Presidency if it came to pass. Considering that the financial crisis is arguably the gravest situation we are currently faced with, Krauthammer should tell us why McCain’s lack of a realistic program should suffice. (Cutting earmarks and lowering taxes on high income homes won’t have any measurable effect, and having the Treasury buy bad loans at par would be disastrous). I understand that Krauthammer likes McCain more than Obama. However, he didn’t give us much in the way of reasoning or evidence outside of his personal preferences.
oh, i see, you just wanted an invitation to tell us why you won’t vote for mccain! jeez, why didn’t you just say that?
Not really — but you did ask if I agreed with Krauthammer & I didn’t want to wimp out –
Haha, fair enough!
Thinking about this some more, you asked for an example of a “cogent argument” for McCain, the implication being that such a thing does not exist. Well, I say that is what Krauthammer makes in the referenced column. How do you define “cogent”? You don’t accept his argument, fine, (I suspect there is no argument for McCain that would be made that you would accept) but it is an argument for McCain that I say meets the standard definition of “cogent”. Your quibbles with the points of his argument are irrelevant to the question.
So, I restate my position: you were looking for someone to offer a pro-McCain argument as an excuse to make your case against McCain, not because you sought knowledge or dialogue. Right?
I can’t access the Krauthammer piece because it requires signing up to their site — and I get enough spam as it is — however I would answer your question this way:
A cogent argument would look at the problems we face and show why John McCain has solutions to them. Since McCain’s positions are largely indistinguishable from Bush’s positions — shown not only in 90% of his Senate votes but also in his frequent remarks that “in the great issues of our time” he is in agreement with Bush — then logically speaking a cogent argument would have to posit either that a) a continuation of Bush’s programs will somehow solve the problems which they created or b) McCain had one or several epiphanies and is now a completely different person. I don’t think that either argument could be made.
I would be interested in seeing a strong argument for McCain — if one could be made — but Krauthammer does not do this. His argument is based largely on personal preference rather than reasoned argument. He ignores the obvious problems with a McCain Presidency – most notably a Palin Vice Presidency – and he seems to make his case reluctantly rather than out of genuine conviction. If his is the strongest case Republicans can make for McCain, it seems pretty thin to me.
And you know what kind of argument Krauthammer makes even though you can’t access the piece?…
It was available yesterday without subscribing.
However, enough of politics and time to shamelessly hijack this thread. I was thinking this morning of which songs have the best opening chords. I came up with the following list:
Satisfaction
Light My Fire
Sunshine of Your Love
Piece of My Heart
Layla
Pinball Wizard
the reprise version of Sargeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band
I picked the last one as my personal favorite. Ringo’s drumming: you just can’t beat it.
Switching gears from the sublime back to the ridiculous (politics): this week’s Economist reports that at least 27 newspapers which endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed Obama. So the Times endorsement, while entirely predictable, is simply part of a consensus.
re: #13 – Where the Streets Have No Name, U2
How Soon is Now, the Smiths
Pawn Shop, Sublime.
Empty Arms, SRV.
Little Bit of Sympathy, Robin Trower.
Ball and Biscuit, White Stripes.
I had best stop there…