Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Times endorses Kerry

Old 10-16-04, 11:08 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Times endorses Kerry

Sorry, not the fair and balanced Washington Times...the New York Times. Is this a big endorsement, or can our republican friends just write it off as a foregone conclusion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/op...tml?oref=login

You'll have to create a username, but it's free.

Regards,
chess
chess is offline  
Old 10-16-04, 11:10 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
October 17, 2004

John Kerry for President

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.



There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.



The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.



Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.



We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.



Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.
I'd bold, but it's all just so compelling.
chess is offline  
Old 10-16-04, 11:14 PM
  #3  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,503
I'm schocked the NYT would do something as unpredictable as this.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-16-04, 11:29 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
I've always had a chuckle whenever someone called the NY Times "right-winged."
Ranger is offline  
Old 10-16-04, 11:56 PM
  #5  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
File --> Print

Great stuff. Can't wait to see the conservative comeback (which will on doubt include words like "flipflopper" and phrases like "its hard").
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:06 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
I had my flipflopper out while reading that editorial, and now it's hard.
dork is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:12 AM
  #7  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Stars
Posts: 1,330
It's a significant endorsement but not unexpected. People usually don't make their choices based on newspaper endorsements though so it won't make much difference. It's probably relevant to point out that liberal papers don't always endorse liberal candidates and vice versa. Endorsements are usually driven by the owners and publishers in large degree and the result is candidate choices that don't always reflect the editorial policy of the paper in question.
Captain Pike is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:13 AM
  #8  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Well Bob, you could knock me over with a feather.
Myster X is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:22 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Tell me how its a big endorsement when anyone who bothers to care what the NYTimes says in its editorial page are basically anti-Bush anyway. It won't change anyone's minds, and is hardly a surprise, given 4 years of bitching about Bush.
chanster is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:26 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Its quite funny that the NYTImes can barely say anything good about John Kerry. It looks like they put a disclaimer paragraph at the beginning and the end just to buttress their ABBer agenda.
chanster is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:31 AM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Stars
Posts: 1,330
Originally posted by chanster
Tell me how its a big endorsement when anyone who bothers to care what the NYTimes says in its editorial page are basically anti-Bush anyway. It won't change anyone's minds, and is hardly a surprise, given 4 years of bitching about Bush.
That's not true. There are plenty of people from across the political spectrum who read the NY Times editorial section. Again: very few people base their votes on newspaper endorsements.
Captain Pike is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:33 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
I'm sure there are people that read the Editorial page from across the political spectrum, I do - but it doesn't mean I (or everybody) puts squat in their opinions.

Heck a few months ago, the NYTimes called for abaonding the electoral college..talk about far out.

Editorial

USA : Abolish the Electoral College

The New York Times, August 29, 2004

When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Last edited by chanster; 10-17-04 at 12:35 AM.
chanster is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 03:00 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy.
Not here in Canada, where parties regularly win power without the benefit of pluralities.
DivxGuy is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 03:04 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
When was the last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican for President?
natesfortune is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 03:06 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
I thought England was the world's oldest democracy?
Ranger is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 03:09 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
raven56706's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,761
Fair and Balanced....... hmmmm
raven56706 is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 03:37 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
wow, the NYT endorsing Kerry!!?!?! Who would have though!

I'm only suprised that it took them this long
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 07:08 AM
  #18  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally posted by Ranger
I thought England was the world's oldest democracy?
They were still essentially a monarchy when the US was founded. There were some elements of a democracy there but the leader was still an inheritable position not an elected one.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 10:36 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Our conservative friends are nothing if not predictable.

Incidentally, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush. I don't think they have anywhere near the distribution of the Times, but I thought I'd mention it.
chess is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 10:42 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Our conservative friends are nothing if not predictable
And so is the Times, which is why this endoresement means nothing. And yes, the Tribune has always been a pro-Republican paper when talking about presidental endorsements.
chanster is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 11:12 AM
  #21  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749


Did they have Jayson Blair write the editorial.
Drudge.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 11:25 AM
  #22  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,299
Originally posted by chess
Our conservative friends are nothing if not predictable.

Incidentally, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush. I don't think they have anywhere near the distribution of the Times, but I thought I'd mention it.




Thanks chess. After the day that was yesterday, I needed some good humor this morning, even if it is the utterly expected variety.

Pharoh is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 11:58 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,813
Shouldn't we retitle this thread to mimic our Bushies on the forum? "Bush crushed amd devastated by the endorsement of the most respected newspaper in the USA."
Mammal is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:02 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
raven56706's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,761
Times....... go figure...... they also had a scandel with their writers right... hmmm
raven56706 is offline  
Old 10-17-04, 12:04 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Originally posted by chanster
Its quite funny that the NYTImes can barely say anything good about John Kerry. It looks like they put a disclaimer paragraph at the beginning and the end just to buttress their ABBer agenda.
I agree. The endorsement reads like a DNC press release. It's really comical that some people don't believe they are a leftist paper. The last republican they endorsed was Eisenhower.

The only thing remotely interesting about this is that they usually wait until the last Sunday of October to endorse their democrat...I mean, candidate. For some reason they decided to go a full two weeks ahead of schedule.
wmansir is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.