HaloScan.com - Comments

I'MMA LET YOU FINISH

Falafel!
Bill "SHUT UP" O'Reilly | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:10 pm | #

FIND OUT IF YOU ARE REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT
Yr Local Draft Board | 10.16.04 - 11:11 pm | #

Over at Orcinus:

I haven't yet seen the Bush "not concerned about him" video played a single time on any major media outlet post-debate

Is this true??? (I have no tv)
Ruttiger | 10.16.04 - 11:12 pm | #

Ann Coulter will be thrilled to hear this. As will Rush Limbug and Savage Weener.

MYOB'
.
MYOB | 10.16.04 - 11:13 pm | #

No, it was not written by 5 year olds. But the endorsement was written for a specific target group - mental midgets with a 5 year old mentality. The idiots who have not figured out who to vote for, yet.
Willem | 10.16.04 - 11:14 pm | #

David Brooks just wet himself. O'Reilly vibrator, anyone?
Rob | 10.16.04 - 11:16 pm | #

FIND OUT IF YOU ARE REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT
Yr Local Draft Board | Email | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:11 pm | #

From what I've read every american citizen can be drafted in time of intense need regardless of age. If they can call up 60 and 70 year olds for limited service then what can you expect?
I for one would rather be listed as a traitor to his country than fight for this administration. I'll be leaving the country should a draft notice arrive at my doorstep.

Off to either New Zealand or Ireland!

MYOB'
.
MYOB | 10.16.04 - 11:16 pm | #

What's the problem with the endorsement, specifically?
Matt Taylor | 10.16.04 - 11:17 pm | #

ON TOPIC:

The NYT editorial is fine, Atrios. It reads like it was written by a committee, but then most presidential speeches do, too.

Right now, we all need to be reading editorials in battleground states.

Peace, JW
JW | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:17 pm | #

Repost from a thread or two ago.

OT the millionthmonkey haloscan hack can be applied to haloscan with a simple edit of the Haloscan template css file.

Modifications of the table.Maintable line adding the table-layout and width
attributes from MM's client side solution, work like a champ in foiling
the long url and HH attacks. the following is the original code.

.MainTable { background-color:#FFF; font-family:Verdana; font-size:11px; border:1px solid #999;}

next with the modifications added.

.MainTable { background-color:#FFF; font-family:Verdana; font-size:11px; border:1px solid #999;table-layout: fixed !important;
width : 400px !important; }

these additions would occur on the server side and would require no
modifications to personal computers.
I have tested the modification and it
works. Anyone using haloscan on their
Blogs can implement the protection.
In any event, if a couple more people
email atrios with this he might be more likely to pull it out of his
distended email inbox.

Kerry/Edwards In A LANDSLIDE!!
kent | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:19 pm | #

Got to agree with Matt Taylor, I don't get Atrios either... Crayon? Obviously, this kind of writing requires a survey of all the Bush failures and atrocities, and if that sounds pedantic so be it. Myself, I found it a resounding, unequivocal statement. With all due respect, I have no idea what the sam hill Atrios is upset about.

Imagine the Washington Post writing anything close.

I think the Times gets it, and if way too late, better than never.
dashavingo | 10.16.04 - 11:21 pm | #

I read the endorsement and it reads fine to me.
Anonymous | 10.16.04 - 11:21 pm | #

HUH?
Lyz Dexic | 10.16.04 - 11:23 pm | #

Off to either New Zealand or Ireland!

MYOB'

Come to Canada! You can stay at my place...
bcdm | 10.16.04 - 11:24 pm | #

Hey, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
As Michael Moore said a few weeks ago, take the friggin' Pontiac.
Karin | 10.16.04 - 11:24 pm | #

Talk about missing the forest for the trees...

geez, yeah, can we please have a discussion, 16 days before the election, about the literary merits of the Times Editorial Board?
cms | 10.16.04 - 11:25 pm | #

that last line is pretty good. New ad?
Zappatero | 10.16.04 - 11:26 pm | #

I agree with Willem and thought they were just trying to explain their decision to the undecideds out there. Frankly, after all the crap we've had to put up with from the NYT, I was relieved that they hadn't let us down with their endorsement. Coming from them, it was pretty no-holds-barred. What's the beef?
TJ | 10.16.04 - 11:26 pm | #

Give 'em a break Atrios. The editorial isn't literature, but it is well done. It is the news side that drank the Kool Aid, not the editorial page.

Why the hell look a gift horse in the mouth? Why alienate everybody?
Alan S. | 10.16.04 - 11:26 pm | #

I agree, I'm not getting what the problem is with the endorsement. It's not exactly a monument to the power and eloquence inherent in the English language, but it's readable and pretty much on the mark.

Having said that, my standards on what we get from the mass media have fallen off, as of late.
SJohn | 10.16.04 - 11:27 pm | #

Give the NYT credit! It's not at all "tepid" and it's pretty readable for those who still haven't caught on that Saddam didn't blow up the WTC. How else should they connect with those people? They don't need to preach to our choir.
kwijibo | 10.16.04 - 11:27 pm | #

I assumed it was an attempt to sway conservative voters written at the appropriate reading level.
yankeedoodle | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:28 pm | #

Ruttiger,

There is a video out there. They even played it on CNN!

I can't find the link now. Figures! I know it was on Americablog.
Matthew | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:30 pm | #

I have no problem with it other than I felt it was more of an indictment with more print space devoted to why Bush was not worthy of a vote (and a complete disastrous failure) versus fewer details and words on why one should vote for Kerry. However, the points they did stress and words they chose as to why they were enthusiastically supporting Kerry to me were important ones so I really was fine with it. I especially loved the part about at the end about looking back at the past four years with hearts nearly breaking .....just how I feel.

PLease do tell what it is you don't care for.
Anonymous | 10.16.04 - 11:30 pm | #

i'm glad to see i'm not the only one confused by atrios' comment. i did try unsuccessfully to craft a letter to the editors with a complaint about the fact that they said Bush "sold" us the war without bothering to mention the role they played in trumpetting Chalabi's lies.

the times needs to do a lot more to live that one down, IMHO.
dalai | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:30 pm | #

Add me to the "Hah?" contingent. To our lights, perhaps it is "crayon" -- or perhaps ABB For Dummies. But, at this stage of American political discourse, it pleases me greatly to see the NYT come out and say, "Okay, this goof's done nothing right, here's a list of what he hasn't done right, here's why all that is a big honkin' problem, VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY".
filkertom | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:31 pm | #

I thought it was a fine endorsement for John Kerry. Guess I'm not as politically astute or savvy as our premier bloggers.
Bob Zimmerman | 10.16.04 - 11:31 pm | #

It is more an indictment of the Bush administration than a ringing endorsement of John Kerry, but I'll take it!
bill | 10.16.04 - 11:33 pm | #

can that fucking falafel bot please be blocked! What an asshole!

As for the NY Times magazine article on bush and his madness, er, faith. I am more scared now than I have been the past 4 years...
jack | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:34 pm | #

Replace the calorie-free snarking of NYT endorsement with something useful: BOOKS FOR SOLDIERS.
Anonymous | 10.16.04 - 11:34 pm | #

It appears that the NYT and Washington Times as well as CNN and others are beginning to try to have it both ways.

They give these "tepid" endorsements to Kerry without stating exactly what it is about BushCo they are endorsing against. This way if Bush steals another election, they can point to their lack of animosity and even-handedness and hopefully retain access to their sources. When Kerry wins, they can proudly proclaim themselves savants for endorsing Kerry before the election and bolster their fading claims of relevance.

There's a word for that...oh yes, PANDERING.
CybScryb | 10.16.04 - 11:35 pm | #

we're glad to see it
so what if it ain't purty
Kim or Cym | 10.16.04 - 11:36 pm | #

As someone posted up-comment, look at who their target is, the undecideds, who I think are just people who don't want to listen to an earful from the other side, whichever side that may be, so they say they're undecided. The endorsement works for me, here's to many more jumping aboard...
Peter Langlois AKA the kid | 10.16.04 - 11:36 pm | #

We shouldn't look gift horses in the mouth.

That said, I agree with Atrios. It reads like a civics report from an 8th grader.
shoggoff | 10.16.04 - 11:37 pm | #

i read something, somewhere out here on the wild, wild web that rated the education level of the debate language. gw came in at like 7th to 8th grade(probably not capable of much more) and kerry came in at like 8th to 9th grade. it's sad but in the dumbing down of america, it's necessary.

anyway, i doubt the endorsement is going to have much of a real effect.

Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
charley | 10.16.04 - 11:38 pm | #

I too think the endorsement well written and carefully considered.

I agree with almost everything Atrios writes, but I fail to see why he finds the NYT endorsement so terrible.

They condemn Bush. They praise Kerry. Am I missing something here?
zenrain | 10.16.04 - 11:39 pm | #

Like the NYT says...."All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope,"" that's why they are voting for Kerry...

So what is it,,, guess work or hope?
This is really pathetic to not be able to tell the difference between voting for kerry or bush??? And they wonder why people are tuning them out?
steve talbert | 10.16.04 - 11:40 pm | #

atrios can be a bitch sometimes.
alex | 10.16.04 - 11:40 pm | #

I'm curious what "the advantages of the American right" are. None come to mind.
Withnail | 10.16.04 - 11:40 pm | #

My problem with the Times has less to do with this editorial than with the ongoing employment of Jeff Gerth/Judith Miller etc. as well as their sleeping through Plame and their severe case of moral relativism in dealing with obvious administration lies and mendacity, etc. etc. etc.

NYT used to be a great paper. So sad they've come to this.
Big Guy | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:42 pm | #

PLEASE REPLACE USELESS NYT ENDORSMENT SNARK WITH

BOOKS FOR SOLIDERS
BOOKS FOR SOLIDERS
BOOKS FOR SOLIDERS
BOOKS FOR SOLIDERS

Please! For the children! They don't like to see bloggers and the NYT fight!!!
Anonymous | 10.16.04 - 11:43 pm | #

Atrios I agree it could have been better but your bitching and juvenile posting "was this endorsement written by a 5 year old?" is not helping matters for Kerry.

I guess you overlooked the part where the NYT, in endorsing Kerry, characterized President Bush's presidency as "disastrous" and accused him of "turning the government over to the radical right."

And said...

"We are impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking," "He is blessedly willing to reevaluate decisions when conditions change." Kerry "has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent," the newspaper said. "He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core."

And closed with this...

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 USUALLY ENJOY YOUR POSTS BUT IN THIS INSTANCE YOU SUCKED.
standa | 10.16.04 - 11:46 pm | #

The NYT piece combines an enthusiastic endorsement of Kerry with a scathing indictment of Bush. It's no "Gettysburg Address", but it'll do.

Was your criticism a trick to get us to go read it?
synykyl | 10.16.04 - 11:46 pm | #

It appears that Atrios is pissed because they didn't confess and offer a mea culpa for their part in helping Bush get away with the horrendous misleadership they outline in their endorsement.

I prefer to be glad for it. All said, it is a good endorsement of Kerry and condemnation of Bush. I just wish it had come a lot sooner.
Scribestalker | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:47 pm | #

A diarist at Kos was pleased that the NYT didn't "hold its nose" endorsing Kerry, and actually praised him rather than going the lesser-of-two-evils route.

My concise NYT editorial would read: "We have so squandered any reputation we once had that we are unworthy to endorse Kerry. We are, however, ethically qualified to endorse W, but rather than do so we will simply fold, never to publish again. We will not be releasing Safire, Wilgoren, Miller and Brooks from their contracts, and will pay them not to write. Goodbye and good luck."
Draco | 10.16.04 - 11:47 pm | #

I thought it was great. If five year olds could write like that we'd be living in a different world. And Bush would be a janitor somewhere.
Doug | 10.16.04 - 11:47 pm | #

Big Guy called it.

The NY Times ain't but a shadow of its former self.

And we haven't even mentioned David Brooks and the continued employment of Safire and the banning of Frank Rich to the Style Section.
Plenty | 10.16.04 - 11:47 pm | #

Sulzberger should resign.
56k | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:47 pm | #

I'm sorry, did everyone read a different article.

Yes, it is an endorsement for Kerry, so far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, however, I was writing better papers in high-school than this.

Maybe the reading ability of the average Times reader has fallen significantly.
David (Austin TX) | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:48 pm | #

I'm thankful for the content and very happy with the overall message, but I've gotta say, Atrios, that I agree- the level of the writing is atrocious. Fragments abound. : )
LD | 10.16.04 - 11:48 pm | #

Crap, Haloscan ate my post, try again. I disagree with you on this, Atrios. Given that the editors are working with word count restrictions, they sound simplistic because they have so much ground to cover in highlighting the worst of many reasons not to vote for Bush. They manage to work in some very high praise for Kerry, and seem to share the opinion of many on this board that he could be a great president. I think it's about the best editorial we could hope for.
Another Bruce | 10.16.04 - 11:48 pm | #

I'm thankful for the content and very happy with the overall message, but I've gotta say, Atrios, that I agree- the level of the writing is atrocious. Fragments abound. ; )
LD | 10.16.04 - 11:48 pm | #

"Furthermore, we at the Times will do our utmost to ensure this endorsement is more than balanced out by our daily campaign coverage."

typical.
Ty Lookwell | 10.16.04 - 11:49 pm | #

The NYT's editorial is not only fine, it is excellent. They wrote this for history's sake.

It is a historical document in that it is about history ongoing, and also historical in its language. I would go so far as to say that it is a noble piece of writing.

On the other hand, reading this almost makes me wonder who kidnapped the NYT editorial board, and who are the people who wrote this endorsement?
Jerky | 10.16.04 - 11:49 pm | #

Don't usually hold to the "if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all" approach, but in this case:

Hey Atrios -

-
Fielding Mellish | 10.16.04 - 11:49 pm | #

Here in Ohio, started the day attending a foreign policy Q& A with Wes Clark. He was joined by Band of Sisters who were devastating - not a dry eye in the house. Clark, of course, was superb. Canvassed in an extremely affluent suburb this afternoon and signed up one volunteer- which counts double for the "not telling" chickenshit bushistas. Got an urgent alert this evening that Kerry was staying at a local hotel and joined 100 others in the cold wind to cheer our heads off - and, the coup de grace - got my hand grasped by the MAN himself. No rest!
pollyanna | 10.16.04 - 11:50 pm | #

I agree with Willem and thought they were just trying to explain their decision to the undecideds out there

I disagree.This editorial was written to placate the current administration,should they win reselection the times is hedgeing its bets.

So much for independant media.The times could have come out with much harsher language in its statement of why they are against bush,AND they could have come out with so many better reasons to vote FOR Kerry.

A lame "liberal" publication.
smalfish | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:50 pm | #

James Wolcott made some great comments the other day about the precipitous decline of the NY Times under Keller.
Ty Lookwell | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:50 pm | #

The editorial may not be on for the ages, but it's a heck of a lot better than what I expect to see in my local fish wrap.
Brian A. | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:50 pm | #

I'm mystified by Atrios' crayon critique too.
Anonymous | 10.16.04 - 11:51 pm | #

Newspapers are usually written at a 10th grade reading level right ?

Upon further reflection perhaps the NYT endorsement was 'dumbed down" a bit to better connect with the 'typical' Bush supporter.
standa | 10.16.04 - 11:52 pm | #

Piling on, as well. What's the problem, Atrios? Sometimes you are cryptic, then I eventually catch on. This time, I don't get it at all.
Mothra | 10.16.04 - 11:56 pm | #

Maybe it was written so Bush supporters could understand it?
James | Homepage | 10.16.04 - 11:58 pm | #

It says something about our media when the paper of record cannot come out with a peice that is more enlightening to those of us that read above a 9th grade level.I want to read about why they think Kerry's policies are so much better than juniors.I want to know exactly why they think the junior administration is so lame that is deserves not the endorsment.Sure they wrote about some of the more publicised reasons,but th eheart of the matter is much deeper and they refused to eloberate upon the real reasons for not endorsing the incumbant.
smalfish | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:00 am | #

"
From what I've read every american citizen can be drafted in time of intense need regardless of age. If they can call up 60 and 70 year olds for limited service then what can you expect?
I for one would rather be listed as a traitor to his country than fight for this administration. I'll be leaving the country should a draft notice arrive at my doorstep.

Off to either New Zealand or Ireland!"

Do us all a favor and leave now. Lots of people are against all of this shit but your just a fucking coward. If your above everyone else and cant die along with us go fuck yourself in Ireland. You think everyone in Iraq is gungho republican? asshole
Anonymous | 10.17.04 - 12:01 am | #

well having actually read the whole thing i don't hate it. they said bush sucked, and that's a good thing.

still, i don't think it makes a big difference.

then again my most glowing endorsement is,

John Kerry Kicks Ass!!!

can't get much more 9th grade than that.
charley | 10.17.04 - 12:02 am | #

Go to www.filmstripinternational.com if you want laugh at Furious George's expense. and Condi's and Rummy's and Dickie's...
Twisted Martini | 10.17.04 - 12:02 am | #

I agree with the crayon assessment, ha, ha, ha.
..........
It was hilarious.
..........
It was NYT wuvs Kerry, NYT hearts Kerry, please Mister Pwesident, couldja fix all the twubbles that naughty Dubya caused, wuw you Mister Pwesident, Mister Pwesident Kerry .
...........
Plus they played down the major prollems that Bush caused like sucking out the Social Security surpluses to whoosh billions and billions to his buddies, grossly neglecting schools and community needs and over panting for the solutions they are now hyperventilating for Kerry to come in and fix.
............
But this was all expected and John Kerry will be a great President. .
............
Rock on .
.............
Sweet, sweet, sweet MinnieB9 | 10.17.04 - 12:03 am | #

Do us all a favor and leave now. Lots of people are against all of this shit but your just a fucking coward. If your above everyone else and cant die along with us go fuck yourself in Ireland. You think everyone in Iraq is gungho republican? asshole

Hey!Thats uncalled for.If I am about to be called up,as I am apparently eligable for,I will NOT show up for any such thing.I refuse to fight is some shit ass war that has no clear end result but to pacify a region that cannot be pacified.I too will escape persecution should the need arise.I will first attempt to fight it,but like anyuthing else,you cannot fight the government when it has its will bent on doing something.

Fuck you nad the horse you rode in on.If you support this fucking war so much why not enlist now you self rightous asshole.
smalfish | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:04 am | #

I think we get so outraged by the limp-dicked media sometimes that nothing short of yelling (((TREASON))) at Bu$h will do.

We are to be forgiven for that, considering all the useless death and wasted credibility the world over AWOL has created.
bigvic | 10.17.04 - 12:04 am | #

NYT comes creeping back into the Dem tent, watch and verify .
............
Happy, happy MinnieB9 | 10.17.04 - 12:05 am | #

NYT didn't "hold its nose" in its endorsement of KErry, but I think Kerry ought to hold his nose when he accepts their endorsement.

I think their essay should have included the phrase: "this editorial board was entirely idiotic thinking that we could trust Bush with a war. We feel terrible about voicing our opinions in favor of the war, and for supporting a whore like Judith Miller in her quest to find herself embedded with Chalabi, the traitorous scumbag.

But we have seen the light and we are trying to make up for our earlier dumbassedness."

Yeah, that would have been a little more honest.
chica toxica | 10.17.04 - 12:06 am | #

Huh?

The editorial is great. What you should want in an endorsement is a clear statement. Something that persuades those still in need of persuasion, who probably aren't the sharpest. Something that can be selectively quoted in campaign commercials and understood by the TV audience. This certainly isn't the wishy washy or tepid "at least he isn't Bush" endorsement that would have been worse. It's FOR Kerry and very much AGAINST Bush. But it doesn't say that George Bush is a retard and his pants are on fire, that's true.
Then again, Kerry didn't say that in his debates, either. It would have pleased his base and persuaded nobody.
So tell me, Atrios, do you want to win the election or do you just want to feel good about bashing the other guy?
I want to win the election. This editorial is a big help with those sort of NYT readers who probably got tax cuts from Bush and initially supported the Iraq war and want someone to validate their decisions.

You're letting your dislike for the SCLM and the Times in particular get the best of you. Don't pout like a sullen child, especially when you get your way. I've read a lot of Times endorsements and they are usually much more wishy washy than this one.
nyt reader | 10.17.04 - 12:06 am | #

Pollyanna -- i am soooo jealous-- Wes Clark & JFK in the same 12-hr period. oh to live in a swing state.
Kim or Cym | 10.17.04 - 12:06 am | #

I agree that it read a bit 'weird', but it was where it needed to be - neither over the top, nor too timid. A few bold words, but not too many such that it would spook undecideds or possible-break-rank-Republicans.

So, if the 'weirdness' of the text is child-like writing, then I would guess it is because the intended audience is both Republicans and undecideds. The NYT knew we liberals would want to be able to splash this article in front of these brainless wonders of the world and actually have them comprehend the message without having to go back to the dictionary every other sentence.

Yes, I'm serious on all counts.

I wonder if we used one of those 'auto-reading-level checker' software programs on this article what it would turn up. Don't they say most Americans can't read past a 3rd grade level? Methinks Republicans and undecideds bring down our average...a lot.
Peter | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:07 am | #

Do us all a favor and leave now. Lots of people are against all of this shit but your just a fucking coward. If your above everyone else and cant die along with us go fuck yourself in Ireland. You think everyone in Iraq is gungho republican? asshole
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:01 am | #

ding dong you're wrong. be an individual. it's wrong to fight in a war you don't believe in. a war fought purely on errant ideological fantasies, and finally a war that is fundamentally undermining the so called "war on terrorism" afghanistan, fine, iraq no fuck'n way. i would go to jail before i would fight for dick's bottom line. these guys are assholes. they want a war, wait till some of those iraqi vetrans start coming back. wait till they realize, as some already are, that they are getting their dicks blown off for dicks bottom line. then you are going to see some righteous outrage. ASSHOLE!
charley | 10.17.04 - 12:08 am | #

I don't mind the endorsement.

I mind the NYT placing Wilgoren and Nagourney on the Kerry beat, and Lizzie Bumlicker on the Bush beat. Not that the Gray Lady should be assigning sycophants, but they could do better than two self-absorbed fucksticks and one lickspittle.
anonymous in nc | 10.17.04 - 12:08 am | #

I thought it was a fine endorsement of John Kerry for President. I especially liked this passage:

"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."
Sofia | 10.17.04 - 12:08 am | #

It may not be Shakespeare, but it does the job.

And many of the Times readership can't spell Shakespeare, let alone read him.

The editorial does the job well enough. Let's hope it makes an impression, much like the boot that will, with any luck, kick Bush out of office.
Art | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:08 am | #

i just dredged this up from blondesense. it's off elmundo.es , a major madrid newspaper for you spanish speakers, this is a way creepy article on bin laden and the october surprise and lets hope it's not true
http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/ 20...1097487207.html
english version here
http:// www.informationclearingho...article7077.htm
moosey | 10.17.04 - 12:08 am | #

Look everybody, as Bob Herbert said on Air America the other day, there is a solid wall between the news division and the editorial page. Because the news is so much more influential, it is forced to tow the company line, in furtherance of supporting the repubs and the Times' ambitions of empire. The editorial page is left alone.

This is exactly the same as at the Wall Street Journal, except that since they are writing for people who make or lose money on the accuracy of their reporting, the mandate to the news division is to be accurate. The editorial page is likewise let alone to go it's looney way.
Alan S. | 10.17.04 - 12:09 am | #

I went back and read the editorial, for the third time. Every time I read it I'm more impressed by it.

He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive

He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

Those are just highlights of the praise the NYT had for Kerry. I can't even list the highlights about what they said about Bush, because that entire section is dead on that it's impossible to pick out what's best.

I think that this is a great editorial.
Another Bruce | 10.17.04 - 12:09 am | #

Huh?

I've got absolutely no problem with this. But maybe my mind is just mush from reading too much of the local rag.

Last summer they wrote an editorial containing about 15 paragraphs detailing all the reasons not to vote for the incumbent sheriff. Then in the last paragraph they said "vote for him anyway." (Note: the sheriff is, by some weird twist, the most powerful political figure in Knox County, TN).

If fully expect to see exactly the same kind of endorsement for Dubya. Maybe tomorrow - early voting has started here in the Volunteer State.
gemini | 10.17.04 - 12:09 am | #

Ooops, standa I see your points too.
...........
They did call Bushie’s tenure disastrous.
............
Yeah, now if only somebody would let the front page bootlickers and Mo Dowd and Friedman and Brooksey and Safire also know.
............
8 years of President Kerry Min | 10.17.04 - 12:09 am | #

And we haven't even mentioned David Brooks and the continued employment of Safire and the banning of Frank Rich to the Style Section.
In NY Times land, going from the Op Ed page to Arts & Leisure(not Style) is actually a promotion.
Karin | 10.17.04 - 12:09 am | #

Crayon?

Should we still sit here, smoking our pipes, scratching our head about how the polls are still so close?

This election is still close because things *haven't* been written in crayon til now. And we're not talking those huge boxes with colors like "burnt sienna." A simple box of eight colors will do.

Keep It Simple will do just fine for those people who need that last nudge right now.
Aquaman | 10.17.04 - 12:10 am | #

You think everyone in Iraq is gungho republican? asshole

The facts speak for themselves, asshole. Chech the stats. The overwhelming number of folks that sign up for the military are pure GOP.

Don't fuck with smallfish. Or I'll KEEL yew!
bigvic | 10.17.04 - 12:10 am | #

Not to be too "clubby" or anything, but I've never seen most of the posters who didn't see the 'forest for the trees' in this post around here before...

But that could just be me, getting old.

NYT = DILLIGAF?
MisterX | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:12 am | #

I still can’t figure out why they would send somebody of Rick Bragg’s caliber writing about oyster boats and Southern homicides (like there are no Northern homicidals at all) rather than send his shrewd ole eyes to watch Washington.
..........
Who were the panting acolytes and eager beavers they sent to cover DC.
..........
that is what I would like to know.
..........
Happy, happy MinnieB9 | 10.17.04 - 12:12 am | #

Frank Rich is so hilarious.
............
8 years of President Kerry Min | 10.17.04 - 12:14 am | #

" i am soooo jealous-- Wes Clark & JFK in the same 12-hr period. oh to live in a swing state."

It was sweet - no mistake, but don't think it makes up for the remaining 364 days of soul-destroying, conservatism. In my heart - Vermont.
pollyanna | 10.17.04 - 12:15 am | #

Well, hopefully this is simple enough, too:

Many detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases.

The people, military guards, intelligence agents and others, described in interviews with The New York Times a range of procedures that included treatment they said was highly abusive occurring over a long period of time, as well as rewards for prisoners who cooperated with interrogators.

One regular procedure that was described by people who worked at Camp Delta, the main prison facility at the naval base in Cuba, was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels, said one military official who witnessed the procedure. The official said that was intended to make the detainees uncomfortable, as they were accustomed to high temperatures both in their native countries and their cells.

Such sessions could last up to 14 hours with breaks, said the official, who described the treatment after being contacted by The Times.

"It fried them,'' the official said, who said that anger over the treatment the prisoners endured was the reason for speaking with a reporter. Another person familiar with the procedure who was contacted by The Times said: "They were very wobbly. They came back to their cells and were just completely out of it.''

The new information comes from a number of people, some of whom witnessed or participated in the techniques and others who were in a position to know the details of the operation and corroborate their accounts.

Expect more excuses about "bad apples" on the Sunday blab circuit in the a.m.

'night, all.
Robert M. Jeffers | 10.17.04 - 12:15 am | #

The Times finally gets off the dime.

Dear Bush supporters, what part of 'disasterous presidency' do you not understand?
K Stone | 10.17.04 - 12:16 am | #

Yeah, I am going with flow that Crayon is much better than the mawk we have been getting from the NYT and it is more like the writing on the wall, it is Hail to the Chief, we are kissing Kerry butt in a big way and we are gonna give out the huggie wuggies all the way in.
.............
which is fine with us, thanks .
.............
Watch and verify as always.
............
Happy, happy MinnieB9 | 10.17.04 - 12:16 am | #

Don't fuck with smallfish. Or I'll KEEL yew!

Thanks for the endorsement,but that asshole was replying to someone elses post.I just had to reply.
smalfish | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:16 am | #

I love the endorsement.

"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."

They make the trains run on time?
js | 10.17.04 - 12:16 am | #

This reminds me of the old expression -

you just heard a dog speak, and this gentleman demands that he recite Shakespeare.
warp resident | 10.17.04 - 12:17 am | #

Fascists that can't even make the trains run on time.

Those are the worst kind!
JC | 10.17.04 - 12:18 am | #

I'm fine with the endorsement - especially because they aren't talking to sophisticated political news junkies; they are talking to the undecideds who are largely uneducated about all of this.
iocaste | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:18 am | #

Oh, hell, that's the one Atrios posted earlier, isn't it?

It is time for bed....
Robert M. Jeffers | 10.17.04 - 12:18 am | #

Nite, nite, RMJ.

We love ya.
bigvic | 10.17.04 - 12:21 am | #

I think the consensus is going for Sweet, sweet, sweet .
..............
Watch and verify .
...............
8 years of President Kerry Min | 10.17.04 - 12:21 am | #

I mean, seriously, can anyone name a single freakin' advantage of the the right?

1. More Anglo-Saxon names, easier to spell correctly.
2. No question where they stand on the vital question of oligarchy.
3. Can eliminate charitable fundraising, since they don't give (except to build memorial buildings on university campuses).

Can anyone give me one freakin' advantage to the right?
js | 10.17.04 - 12:21 am | #

See ya later, my sweet babies.
...........
Happy, happy MinnieB9 | 10.17.04 - 12:22 am | #

Crayon? I actually thought it was good, particularly their "enthusiastic" endorsement. Simple is good.
Kyra | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:24 am | #

http://wakeusup.blogspot.com/200...ush- linked.html

Marvin P Bush..
DAN RATHER | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:25 am | #

"The overwhelming number of folks that sign up for the military are pure GOP."

Are they that way going in, or after time in?
EkCenTrik | 10.17.04 - 12:25 am | #

Better an NYTimes editorial written in crayon than an NYT news story by Judith Miller written in blood.
Thersites | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:25 am | #

moosey--

I would not worry too much about what El Mundo says about the world...and, in fact, I would not worry about the Spanish newspapers in general in terms of their accuracy and attention to detail. I read the spanish dailys...er...daily, and they consistently have gaping factual holes, often erring on the side of conspiracy theories. This article (about bin laden being in China and negotiating with BushCo) stinks. I do not think El Mundo has anyone reliable on the ground in China, or even in the Washington press corps.

Remember, also, that El Mundo is the conservative rag.
chica toxica | 10.17.04 - 12:25 am | #

Compare and contrast with the unapologetic Kerry endorsement,without the ABB leadin, in the Lone Star Iconoclast
Karin | 10.17.04 - 12:26 am | #

What everyone else said. Lighten up, A. It's not beautifully written, but it's a strong endorsement of Kerry, and does a pretty good job of laying out many of the reasons why Bush is so horrible.
Frederick | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:27 am | #

It wasn't so much crayon, as a mound of mush. This endorsement should be with alarms and trumpets, and it was just...meh. As someone said, written by committee.

Elsewhere in the Times, it's time to revisit OKRENT! Check out the Week in Review, to wit: "Two prominent critics of The Times respond to my argument that the newspaper is not systematically biased in its campaign coverage." Next week: Readers respond!
SG | 10.17.04 - 12:31 am | #

What's the problem? An unqualified Kerry endorsement and a survey of Bush disasters.

Well done NYT.
Alex | 10.17.04 - 12:31 am | #

I guess I need to go back to school.

Crayon? Five year-old? Whaaaa?!

Please, tell us how it could have been better. They ENTHUSIASTICALLY endorsed Kerry and blasted Bush. My only complaint was that I felt it was written by some other editorial staff -- clearly not the one who's been comparing Bush's lies to Kerry's "flip-flops" in one pathetic editorial after another. By paragraph two I thought, "It's about time. They've finally come around!"

Keep it up, Atrios. Peace.
kate | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:33 am | #

Hey. I resent MisterX's implication that I'm a troll just because I thought the piece wasn't written well.
shoggoff | 10.17.04 - 12:33 am | #

Between the Mars, oh mu bitches post and this, I wonder what's going on with Atrios this weekend.
?? | 10.17.04 - 12:33 am | #

I agree that the endorsement could have emphasized Kerry's strengths more, but all in all I thought it was a very strong condemnation for a major media and was perfectly happy about it. Given the comments on these threads, albeit by well meaning people, any reference to crayons seems overkill.
Ben Langhinrichs | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:36 am | #

Alan S

Actually, you've got it a little backwards. There is a line between the editorial page and the news section, but the theory is to protect the news report from the opinions on the editorial page.
As has been explained in various books about the paper, the Times endorsements are not based on a "vote" by an editorial board. Nobody gets the nod without the consent of the publisher, who also decides many other editorial positions, with the advice of his stable of editorial writers and editors. By tradition, the publisher generally does not get involved in day to day news coverage, and by most accounts would never dictate how Nagourney or Wilgoren cover individual events. The publisher appoints the top editors and lets them do their jobs, and
only steps in if things really get bad -- as happened with Howell Raines, who presided over the Jayson Blair mess and the runup to the Iraq war that included the journalistic atrocities of Judy Miller (Raines was also the prime mover behind the paper's Whitewater attacks on Clinton). The failings of the Times and other media in news reporting about politics are attributable to two things: 1) the limitations of the "objective journalism" fallacy, combined with laziness and incompetence 2) powerful and sophisticated Republican/conservative spin machines (see David Brock's book). The editorial page, thankfully, has no obligation to pretend to be objective or quote Republican b.s. out of some effort to be "fair." But the reporters you excoriate are simply following the rules of the "objective journalism" game. It is what they are paid to do and are probably more frustrated with it than you are. But that's the business model. They aren't blogs. When Atrios and Kos start raking in millions of paying eyeballs and much more advertising, I'm sure even the media will re-examine the business model.

In the meantime, on this endorsement, I say take the win.
nyt reader | 10.17.04 - 12:38 am | #

ATRIOS BLOG: Written by a 5 year old?

The notion that the NYT editorial was in any way bad or was written in crayon is RIDICULOUS. Atrios is so off-base with his commentary on this that it seriously made me question whether the site had been hacked by a freeper.

Kerry could have hardly asked for a better endorsement from a major newspaper. They went "to bat" for the guy at the NYT and it wasn't tepid at all.

I was surprised by how much they went after Bush. It was great.

Boo to Atrios, hooray NYT
truthful | 10.17.04 - 12:40 am | #

Saying that it sounded like coming from a 5-year-old was unnecessarily harsh.

It was at LEAST an 11-year-old reading level.

I agree that this was because they finally wanted to SPELL - IT - OUT to the "persuadables".
Richard Banville | 10.17.04 - 12:40 am | #

Simple sentences, some of which could use a bit of editing, but they add up to a strong endorsement. C'mon Atrios, we've all seen worse, and for what it's worth, the NYT editorials lately have been pretty strong and on target; thereby standing in marked constrast to the complete shit that finds itself onto their news pages.
Baal | 10.17.04 - 12:41 am | #

Yeah. I can't wait to die so that the Iraqis have universal health care and new schools.
Hurray for War | 10.17.04 - 12:41 am | #

I know we're all busy either campaigning or blogging and generally doing our party for Kerry, but if anyone has the time to respond to this website's assertion www.remor.com, it might be beneficial as it is based in the great swing state of Ohio.
Sally | 10.17.04 - 12:43 am | #

Hey. I resent MisterX's implication that I'm a troll just because I thought the piece wasn't written well.
shoggoff

Me either.

My surprise was more that this post inspired so many new folks to speak up, and speak up defensively. That is all.
MisterX | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:44 am | #

I liked the NYT editorial: it said Bush's presidency has been disastrous. I especially appreciated it when I saw that Wapo has as one of its leading stories that "most people think John Kerry's Lesbian remark was inappropriate" or something similar. Still, I don't think NYT has made up for its deplorable coverage of the leadup to the invasion. It is still rather timid, or snide and trivializing (think Nagourney and Wilgorin) overall.
Leslie | 10.17.04 - 12:44 am | #

The article is dumbed down so the repugs can understand it. It was probably written slowly too.
jus' sayin' | 10.17.04 - 12:48 am | #

My surprise was more that this post inspired so many new folks to speak up, and speak up defensively. That is all.
MisterX | Email | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:44 am | #

Fair enough, altho I delurked about a week ago. Had to have ~someone~ to chat with about the debate. Haven't had that much feeling of unity and energy since the protests at the RNC.
shoggoff | 10.17.04 - 12:51 am | #

I also thought the NYT endorsement was well-written, concise, forceful. Five-year-olds? Crayons? Sheesh, what's up with THAT?
Myra Culpepper | 10.17.04 - 12:54 am | #

The problem is that it's more of a denunciation of Bush than it is an endorsement of Kerry. Kind of like the whole Democratic campaign in general. So what is it that these guys (Kerry/Edwards) are going to do so much better anyways? I still don't know. But they have PLANS!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 12:55 am | #

Hello my name is Bill and I am a troll.

Hiiii, Bill!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 12:57 am | #

First time I've ever disagreed with Atrios, but so it is... I have a hard time finding anything to complain about. They admit that "there is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure", but I certainly resonate with this sentiment. If the Democratic nominee were NOT John Kerry, would we be voting for Bush? I don't think so.

Come on, Atrios... where's the crayon?
arachnae | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:57 am | #

Atrios,

I disagree with your assessment of the NY Times endorsement of John Kerry as being the sort of thing written by a child. I thought it was an excellent endorsement with documentation intended to persuade just about anyone with a reasonably open mind. I do not understand what deficits this endorsement has to which you object.

BCH
Burt Humburg | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 12:59 am | #

Worth quoting:
..............
....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.

...He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

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.

[excellent summary of Bush on affirmative action, civil liberties, taxes, economy, education/NCLB, environment -- all issues neglected in the debates for the most part]

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.

[wait for it...]

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

[asshole! and stupid too -- he actually could have won over a lot of New York liberals after the shock of 9/11 -- I was here and plenty of people were ready to go to the dark side, but Chimpy overstepped and they came to their senses]

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.

[Restates a Kerry talking point better than Kerry did it originally]

...the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

[slam!]

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.

[I wish Kerry had said it this way in the debates]

His most fri
nyt reader | 10.17.04 - 1:00 am | #

As a denunciation of Bush, it's extremely effective. But there is evident enthusiasm, too, for Kerry. (Which is great, but personally, I'd vote for a ham sandwich if said sandwich was the most "electable" alternative to Bunnypants -- besides, how can anyone do WORSE?!)
Myra Culpepper | 10.17.04 - 1:01 am | #

Click homepage for some Canuk attitude concerning Americans forced to flee thier beloved nation in time of grossly unjust warfare . Our Prime Minister at the time ( of the Vietnam Era) , much beloved madman Pierre Trudeau , sympathised entirely with the youth made to face death in service of imperialism , and welcomed them with open arms .

I for one will never reject a conscientious objector,and so , remember all , if any of you must flee or know someone who will, my friends and I here in TO have talked about making soup for any who need refuge .

That said , I actually think that we won't have to worry that much about that horror show if things go right in Nov.

Peace all . Eh?
A.s.H. | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:02 am | #

I dunno - I think it was kind of savvy of the Times - in that it was written in the rhetorical style of Chimpy Dubya Bush, Mr. Declarative Statement. Hey! If his bonehead speeches appeal to you, read this! I'll buy THAT for a dollar. And so forth.
muffy | 10.17.04 - 1:04 am | #

Myra, along the lines of your comment, I've always thought the Kerry campaign should just drop all of their slogans and just switch to: "We can't fuck things up more even if we tried."
Jason | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:04 am | #

A.s.H.
I wouldn't be too sure. Bush has said there will be no draft. And wasn't Kerry the one proposing a mandatory national service?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:05 am | #

Better an NYTimes editorial written in crayon than an NYT news story by Judith Miller written in blood.

Word.
bigvic | 10.17.04 - 1:06 am | #

And I also disagree that it's mostly against Bush... implicit in the criticism of Bush is what Kerry would have done in his shoes, and then there is the concise, comprehensive pro-Kerry statement at the end:
......................
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.

[me too]
nyt reader | 10.17.04 - 1:07 am | #

Bill wrote:

"The problem is that it's more of a denunciation of Bush than it is an endorsement of Kerry. Kind of like the whole Democratic campaign in general. So what is it that these guys (Kerry/Edwards) are going to do so much better anyways? I still don't know. But they have PLANS!"

What's more important, historically speaking? Getting Bush out of the White House, or getting Kerry elected?

I'd say the former, and I think Kerry will make an excellent president.
Jerky | 10.17.04 - 1:08 am | #

The various parts of the endorsement editorial (separated by an asterisk!) do sort of jolt up against each other, but the overall message, although unartful, is almost more than could be expected from The New York Times.

Most important, from my point of view, is the impact the endorsement will have on other media. Although newspaper endorsements of national candidates tend to reflect not just the views of the paper's owners/publishers but also are done with some consideration of the views of the readship of the paper.

I think we'll see the impact of this endorsement in other endorsements across the country.

And there are some great phrases that can be taken advantage of in the closing weeks of the campaign.

On balance, not a Ted Sorensen-like essay, but very helpful to the Kerry candidacy.

And consider, it could have been an ABB or pro-Bush editorial.
JimPortlandOR | 10.17.04 - 1:08 am | #

Kerry just got the Minneapolis Tribune endorsement as well. I can't access it on their website- does anyone else have the text?
ornery old grizzly | 10.17.04 - 1:12 am | #

the endorsement is more ABB than pro-Kerry. A few kind words for Kerry and reasons to vote for him, but mostly what a disaster the Bushliar regime has been and why we could never survive another 4 years.
gak | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:12 am | #

The NYT's took a page out of the Karen Hugh's playbook.
Make it SIMPLE so the average American can understand it.
Anna Clare | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:14 am | #

Funny- I read the endorsement before I looked at the comments here. My reaction was the same as Atrios': although I'm glad the Times has finally managed to acknowledge that Bush has been an atrocious president, what should be one of their most important editorials is not very well written, particularly the first two paragraphs. It's not what they said (though I did find it tepid regarding Kerry- "Eh, he's ok"), it's how they said it. I thought their condemnation of Bush was far more articulate than their endorsement of Kerry.

But I don't really understand why so many here are leaping to the Times' defense. Even if they were aiming for the LCD, and despite their many journalistic flaws, the Times is still the newspaper of record in this country. They should be setting high standards, not settling for low ones. They are not (yet) the Podunk Chronicle.

For example: "...Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built..."; "...impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge..."; "...first over-promoted and then over-pilloried...". That's just sloppy writing. IMHO, of course.
JeffCO | 10.17.04 - 1:16 am | #

I'll take the endorsement, and thanks be to God that Judy Miller didn't write it.
John Kerry | 10.17.04 - 1:16 am | #

Definitely better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And for undecideds, not a terribly important endorsement, as noted upstream.
Bobo | 10.17.04 - 1:19 am | #

Kerry now leads Bush by a margin of 5 to 1 in terms of the volume of circulation of the papers that have endorsed his candidacy.
night owl | 10.17.04 - 1:20 am | #

the article that i went to was a total dismembering of the bush admin's policies of the last 4 years.

maybe it didnt spend most of the space to kerry, but all references were very positive.

the editorial was not a "anybody but bush" type endorsement.

-ub
UncleBilly | 10.17.04 - 1:22 am | #

"Kerry now leads Bush by a margin of 5 to 1 in terms of the volume of circulation of the papers that have endorsed his candidacy."

So I wonder how that translates into the news coverage?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:24 am | #

Anyone watching Pryor on Comedy Central? Very nice stuff.
'sconi | 10.17.04 - 1:26 am | #

I have no problem disagreeing with Atrios when I think he's wrong, but in this case I think he's basically right. This editorial reads as though it was written by a committee of 5-year-olds and lawyers (or 5-year-old lawyers). Good content. Poor writing.
Dave in NYC | 10.17.04 - 1:28 am | #

"So I wonder how that translates into the news coverage?"

And yet the polls are still very close...

(Is it legal for a troll to re-bait off his own posts?)
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:28 am | #

Boston Globe has endorsed Kerry today, taking two editorials to do it. One for Kerry, the other against Bush.
Libby Sosume | 10.17.04 - 1:30 am | #

OTOH, elsewhere on today's opinion page MoDo nails the hypocritical Catholic bishops to a tree:

The conservative bishops, salivating to overturn Roe v. Wade, prefer an evangelical antiabortion president to one of their own who said in Wednesday's debate: "What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice ... is between a woman, God and her doctor."

Like Mr. Bush, these patriarchal bishops want to turn back the clock to the 50's. They don't want separation of church and state - except in Iraq.

Some of the bishops - the shepherds of a church whose hierarchy bungled the molestation and rape of so many young boys by tolerating it, covering it up, enabling it, excusing it and paying hush money - are still debating whether John Kerry should be allowed to receive communion.

These bishops are embryo-centric; they are not as concerned with the 1,080 kids killed in a war that the Bush administration launched with lies, or about the lives that could be lost thanks to the president's letting the assault weapons ban lapse, or about all the lives that could be saved and improved with stem cell research.

[snip]

America is awash in selective piety, situational moralists and cherry-picking absolutists.
JeffCO | 10.17.04 - 1:31 am | #

To quote Meis van der Rohe, sometimes "Less is More".

I think this applies to the Times editorial.
Sofia | 10.17.04 - 1:33 am | #

I think it was kind of savvy of the Times - in that it was written in the rhetorical style of Chimpy Dubya Bush, Mr. Declarative Statement. Hey! If his bonehead speeches appeal to you, read this!

I think muffy got it exactly right. This editorial wasn't written for us, but for those people who want and need things spelled out for them in simple terms. I liked it, because I think it will make sense to those who have a problem with complex sentences.
Emily | 10.17.04 - 1:33 am | #

"all the lives that could be saved and improved with stem cell research."

Yeah, they'll be throwing away those wheelchairs soon, Hallellujah!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:35 am | #

Microsoft Word 2003 reports, you decide:

3.4 sentences per paragraph
22 words per sentence
5 characters per word

18% passive sentences
38.5 Flesch Reading Ease
"The Flesch Reading Ease score is based on a 100 point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to comprehend."

12.0 Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level
The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score rates text based on the U.S. high school grade level system (i.e. a score of 7.0 would mean a 7th grader should be able to comprehend the text)" source
Bryan | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:37 am | #

But I don't really understand why so many here are leaping to the Times' defense. Even if they were aiming for the LCD, and despite their many journalistic flaws, the Times is still the newspaper of record in this country. They should be setting high standards, not settling for low ones. They are not (yet) the Podunk Chronicle. (...) That's just sloppy writing. IMHO, of course.
JeffCO

Agreed.
MisterX | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:38 am | #

JeffCO

And what about a candidate who oh so sonorifically professes that his faith guides him on matters such as civil rights (OK by me...), the environment, world affairs, the economy (think of the poor people), but then chooses 'not to impose it' on the core tenets of that faith, hypocrisy or no. And what would he do if the political winds were blowing the other way? Be honest!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:40 am | #

Kerry describes how his faith guides his actions, then ignores the core tenets of that very faith in the life and death matters of abortion and stem cell research.

Bill

I could give a fuck less regarding what kind of invisible bunnyman Kerry chooses to ignore as long as his views on choice and science are correct. Which of course they are. You might want to direct your arguments to www.torquemadarocks.com.
-
Fielding Mellish | 10.17.04 - 1:43 am | #

Even a 5 year old can see what a mess the chimp in chief has made.
zgveritas | 10.17.04 - 1:44 am | #

moosey -- I was in a great mood tonight after Wisconsin's win against Purdue, and then your post came along. Not that I'm cheering for OBL to stay on the loose, but if this is true . . . . .
dignity and honor | 10.17.04 - 1:44 am | #

Fielding Mellish
Science does not and can not answer the question of when that entity becomes a human being.
ill | 10.17.04 - 1:46 am | #

Hell,Atrios.

It's an endorsment. Thank God for that, at least.
everyonelovespete | 10.17.04 - 1:46 am | #

Ya'll are following the Cheshire cat. Kerry describes how his faith guides his actions, then ignores the core tenets of that very faith in the life and death matters of abortion and stem cell research.

Bill

To quote the philosopher of our times, bar none, Homer Simpson:

"You're boring! Stop boring me!"

Thank you. By the way, the next time you have some time on your hands, please do a google search for the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights. You might be surprised to find that the separation of church and state is embodied in the First Amendment.

When President Kerry takes the oath of office in January, he will pledge to uphold, above all else, the United States Constitution (i.e., the "Supreme Law of the Land"), not his religious beliefs, and certainly not yours.

Mr. Bill, the doctrine of "ensoulment," the belief that the soul enters an embryo upon conception, that "life begins at conception," as articulated by hardcore Catholics and fundamentalist Christians, is not, I repeat, is not, empirically verifiable, and therefore, a religious, moral belief, and well within the proscription of church-state separation.

Now, it's well past your bedtime, and "My Pet Goat" won't read itself.

That is all.

_FF_
fyodor_fish | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:47 am | #

It's just that, anytime you have to explain something and compare with the Chimp, it's gonna sound stupid.
everyonelovespete | 10.17.04 - 1:48 am | #

"Not that I'm cheering for OBL to stay on the loose, but if this is true . . . . ."

AH-HAA!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:48 am | #

Bill the troll says that Bush says there will be no draft. Well, troll, Bush is a lying motherfucker. He's looked the American people right in the eyes and lied to us time and again. So just because he says there will be no draft doesn't make it true. Just like when he said that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium-- that was pure bullshit. Or like how he lied about the cost of his Medicare bill. See, Bill, you just can't trust this lying piece of shit.

Then Bill reveals his true fundie wingnut nature by blathering some nonsense about abortion and stem cell research.

Hey, Bill, fuck you. Send another check to Pat Robertson, you dumbfuck.
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 1:48 am | #

It wasn't a stylistic masterpiece, but overall I don't have a problem with it.

After all, how do you describe all the atrocities in such a short space? Let's just be happy and let it go at that.

We can worry about cleaning up the NYTimes and the rest of the media after the elections.
fourlegsgood | 10.17.04 - 1:49 am | #

Bill, it's past your bedtime. Go have some warm milk and maybe a Valium and tomorrow you can play with people your age.
Emily | 10.17.04 - 1:49 am | #

fish person
And where in the US Constitution does it specify a woman's "right to choose"
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:49 am | #

Chomsky's on CSPAN2.
Rock. | 10.17.04 - 1:50 am | #

Hey cmon Emily this is the best I can do between the dial-yop and the scoth.
Anonymous | 10.17.04 - 1:50 am | #

It strikes me that newspaper endorsements probably help sustain the myth of the liberal media. People who are not equipped to detect the bias in individual news stories will rely on endorsements to categorize newspapers, not realizing that the connection between the editorials and the editorial management of news is often tenuous (as discussed specificially re: nyt upthread).
Thomas Jefferson | 10.17.04 - 1:53 am | #

Alright, how's THIS:

NYT GIVES KERRY WRINGING ENDORSEMENT

Heh heh.
MisterX | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:56 am | #

Wazzamattayoo Atrios?

There is NOTHING wrong with that endorsement. It is a concise, devastating, point-by-point indictment of the Bush presidency, followed by a generous list of Mr. Kerry's virtues. They even go so far as to say he has the makings of a great president, not just an acceptable alternative to Bush, which is something I myself have come to appreciate about him in recent moths. If you have a five year-old who can write like that, you won't have to worry about your retirement!
Blerb | 10.17.04 - 1:57 am | #

"Mr. Bill, the doctrine of "ensoulment," the belief that the soul enters an embryo upon conception, that "life begins at conception," as articulated by hardcore Catholics and fundamentalist Christians, is not, I repeat, is not, empirically verifiable, and therefore, a religious, moral belief, and well within the proscription of church-state separation."

In my opinion, it has nothing to do with "ensoulment" or religion. It has to do with human rights, the right to LIVE. At conception, that entity is neither a bird, nor beast, but a potential human contribution to society. And the reason for denying that potential is, in the vast majority of cases, for convenience.

That doesn't sit well with leftist or rightist dogma. So where do you stuff that burrito, mon ami?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 1:58 am | #

Christ Bill even introduced himself as a troll, I would think not feeding him would be obvious.
Division | 10.17.04 - 1:58 am | #

Christ, Bill even introduced himself as a troll, I would think not feeding him would be obvious.

Needed to repost that with the first comma, otherwise it looks like I'm calling him Jesus v2.0.
Division | 10.17.04 - 2:01 am | #