Reply
Sun 17 Oct, 2004 03:42 am
This editorial puts this entire election in perfect perspective.
It is a gem.
Hope you can get through using this link...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?th
The link works.
Apart from NYT, the other newspapers " Dayton Daily News" , "Star Tribune" and of course the"Boston Globe" are on Kerry's side.
Bush:
"Omaha World Herald" "Rocky Mountain News"
"The Carlsbad Current-Argus"
Does that surprise anyone? The majority of the media is supporting Kerry. They never saw a liberal they did not like, did they?
Greyfan wrote:How about Ralph Nader?
Don't read a support statement by a newpaper until now.
But that's good:
Quote:Nader's former running mate says she's voting for Kerry this time
Ralph Nader's running mate in the 1996 and 2000 elections says she's voting for John Kerry this time.
Winona LaDuke, who lives on the White Earth Indian Reservation in northwestern Minnesota, issued a prepared statement saying, "I'm voting my conscience."
LaDuke, 44, is a longtime American Indian activist. She applauded Kerry's efforts in solving Indian Trust cases and said that his support of native communities shows "we are on his radar."
"Heck, Kerry can even say 'sovereignty,' which is a far cry from Bush's inability to pronounce the word," she said.
Source
Great editorial Frank.....Thanks!
Thanks for the article, I like the positive way the NYT sums it all up.
That's a rockin' editorial. I've never seen the whole case summarized so cogently.
Larry434 wrote:Does that surprise anyone? The majority of the media is supporting Kerry. They never saw a liberal they did not like, did they?
yes, people who read and write...astounding eh?
Pan, I was just coming to post that link. Very long (10 pages) but worth the read. Very telling. Very scary. For those that like to be scared by Bush with different color alerts, they would do well to read the NYtimes magazine article.
To be honest Squinney, the article and the editorial took me completely out of the "lesser of two evils camp" which is pretty crowded these days.
That's great panz.
Want a cheesecake?
Or a smooch?
Or both?
:-D
The smooches that taste like cheesecake I'm partial to.
At the moment though, I'm concerned about Phoenix and O'Bill. I predict that if they don't shift from undecided to Kerry, Bush will win.
He deserves both, sozobe!
From the article, just one example:
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
panzade wrote:The smooches that taste like cheesecake I'm partial to.
At the moment though, I'm concerned about Phoenix and O'Bill. I predict that if they don't shift from undecided to Kerry, Bush will win.
O'Bill is no longer among the undecided
(Don't ask why this delights me so....I'm soooooooo shallow and superficial LOL)
Definitely curious about Bill's take on this one-two punch. I'm on page 8 of the long article, and damn, it's devastating.
<cheesecake-flavored smooch to panz!>
For that matter, I'm curious about what you have to say about it, JW. I can imagine you'll disagree, but will be curious about whether you have anything specific to disagree with or whether it will be general complaints about the liberal media...
There are so many amazing passages, will probably quote a lot, but this one really struck me:
Quote:A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.
Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''
If one read the front page of the Times even superficially over the past week this endorsement could have been predicted. In a series of articles the Times has presented a broad and disturbing picture of incompetence and in MHO incipient disaster if a second Bush term is allowed.