The New Yorker has never endorsed a presidential candidate before. They must feel it pretty important to get rid of Bushy.
BTW- I voted today. Got to use a Diebold machine - it was a pleasant experience.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am waiting a simple, straight forward balls out endoresement, front page, headline, blod print: "If George Bush gets another four years we are screwed and much of the planet with us. He has taken us back 50 years already. Another 4 years will take us to the 1900 world fair."
As to Diebold, I would rather see them devote their talents to toilets: both experiences would be pleasant, but the test is what they do with the results.
There is already a surplus of simple minded endorsements for both candidates. It's nice to see an article that condemns Bush's presidency using actual information and analysis, tather than parroting a Kerry stump speech or quoting Michael Moore.
A reasonable (literate) Republican should be able to read this article and understand why people are so passionaltely devoted to defeating the Bush campaign.
I can write a perfectly reasoned statement supporting George Bush. As noted in "the unbearable lightness of being", nothing is every done twice exactly. I can correlate poverty, crime, low school achievement, drug use to single parent households, lower church attendance, pornograpy, violent film and games.
"House built on a weak foundation cannot stand". One could argue Bush is doing the thankless job of working on the foundation.
Besides, there is no intersection between faith and reason: they are separate sets.
I lean toward the bold statement, the headline, the simple statement so I don't have to parse the result, I put all my money on the table with one bet: If Bush gets re-elected, we are fucked. Asking a binary question, I will only take a binary answer. Yes or no.
People simple do not have time to be so terribly well informed.
Is the weather good or bad today, yes or no.
The New Yorker endorses Kerry, that is good. But I would like to see somebody just lay it out: Bush sucks. It's really at the level that "shit is bad" and I don't need an essay to describe its downside.
Is shit bad? Ask the third world farmer who would get no crops without it.
Point taken: shit has its place.
In the fields? ok
on the dinner table: special acquired taste I'd be thinking.
In the white house? I guess it wouldn't be the first time.
Equivocation is wonderful.
Post a Comment