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 | #

dignity and honor
Hell, yes, Wisconsin did it against Purdue. And there's a lesson to be learned - vote for Bush, lose at football.

Also, about the article that concerned you, here is the author's treasure trove of other articles he sells to the international press.
Bryan | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:01 am | #

Division
You had it right the first time!

AHHH-HAAAAAA!

(Don't worry ya'll my scothch just ran out)
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:05 am | #

This from the cat blogger......
GB | 10.17.04 - 2:07 am | #

RE:
"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"

Huh? Does it say anything about abortion or stem cell research in the bible? Did God say "Thou shalt not make blastulas by in-vitro fertilization and then dissociate them into individual cell lines"?

Bullshit!

Who are these clowns who talk about christian values without knowing what they are.

I am not a practicing Christian myself, but I have read the New Testament, and as far as I can tell, the important values of christianity are:

Acknowledge your sins, repent of them, and ask forgiveness for them (all that Jesus is the only savior stuff is debatable), and you will be saved.

Forgive others their trespasses upon you

Love your neighbor as you love yourself

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Serve your fellow man.

That's pretty much it, if you read the things Jesus is actually purported to have said.

All that other stuff about Jesus being the only way to salvation on pain of eternal hellfire, celibacy fro priests, the trinity, and anything pleasurable being a sin is just bullshit that was made up by people who wanted to re-interpret Jesus' teachings to form the basis of a system of social control.

Crusades, inquisitions, with hunts, persecution of heretics, homosexuals, and libertines is all either a holdover from the fairly barbaric ancient Judaism, in which countless things are forbidden and punishable by death, or a construct of power-hungry individuals who have perverted a beautiful moral and pohilosophical teaching to their own nefarious ends.

How these idiots can interpret cloning or stem-cell production from a ball of 64 cells as murder, but be in favor of the death penalty is a mystery to me.

Read your own damn book, fool!
Blerb | 10.17.04 - 2:12 am | #

Er, well, I've only posted here a few times...but I thought the NYT endorsement was anything but tepid - what some posters read as simplistic I saw as a heartfelt unequivocable plea for the American people to do the right thing and elect the better man - not just the BETTER man, but an actual honest to god GOOD man...it's really rare for the NYT to climb down off its high horse as "America's Paper of Record" and state in a straightforward way whom they support and why.

I was impressed. It shows someone there is reacting as strongly as we (trolls excluded) are to four years of unmitigated disaster and the prospect of an infinitely brighter future under President Kerry.
Other Lisa | 10.17.04 - 2:13 am | #

I don't understand Atrios' problem with this. Sure it's pedantic -it's the Times, for chrissakes.

"As we look back on the past four years, with hearts nearly breaking" is perhaps the most poignant thing I've ever read in a Times editorial.

Yeah, I wish they'd spent a lot more time talking about why Kerry is good, rather than why Bush is bad - but that really, to be honest, is the central issue this year.
Sean O'Gara | 10.17.04 - 2:18 am | #

Blerb
Read the 1:58 am comment. There's no need to get so anti-religious.

I oppose the concepts on the principles of the left. (!)

"Convenience" is the cog in the gears of your great machine.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:20 am | #

The NYT does sometimes endorse Republicans, but not for President.
rachelrachel | 10.17.04 - 2:21 am | #

Sean, you underlined what I was trying to get across in the post above yours..."hearts nearly breaking" is just not the kind of thing one ever expects to see in an NYT editorial, and I, for one, deeply appreciate it. Cause that's pretty much how I feel, when I'm not so angry I could pick up an uzi...

But no worries, here in California, we still have an assault weapon ban....
Other Lisa | 10.17.04 - 2:22 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.

Ain't nothing more Catholic than ignoring Catholic dogma, Chester.
Thersites | 10.17.04 - 2:30 am | #

Take the quiz.
'sconi | 10.17.04 - 2:31 am | #

And the Methodist church opposes both capital punishment and the war. So Bush (and Bushies) hardly has moral authority there.
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 2:33 am | #

The dumbshit writes:

"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?"

Hey, Bill, every time I whack off to Internet porn, that's a couple of million "potential human lives" perishing right there on the Kleenex. So pray for my little lost civilization next time you talk to Jeebus.

Actually, the statement you made sits perfectly with rightist dogma, so feel free to stuff that burrito right up your sanctimonious asshole. If you're so concerned about human rights, why don't you do something to stop the slaughter of living, breathing, innocent women and children in Iraq rather than crusading for the "human rights" of microscopic embryos on liberal weblogs?

No, your buddies on the religious right don't give a shit about human rights, and they don't give a shit about aborted fetuses. They want to STOP PEOPLE FROM FUCKING, or at least punish them for fucking. The opposition to abortion on the right was, is and always will be about the powerful imposing ancient standards of morality on the weak.

And hey, Bill, abortions can't be all bad. Remember, your hero George W. Bush arranged one for that broad in Texas he knocked up back in the day.

Okay, I'm done troll feeding now.
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 2:36 am | #

It's a long way from deathless prose.. but it's the best one I've seen for me to send to my Bush-hypnotized friends. It spells out very simply what I've been trying to explain to them for months. Before they'd remotely consider Kerry, or any Dem, they have to be persuaded that Bush is just plain not acceptable. They know I frequent the liberal blogs and websites, and assume therefore that I'm just parroting left-wingnut conspiracy theories. But now the mainstream NYT has spelled it out in See Spot Run language. Devastating (I hope). I have a couple of those friends who are (in their words) scared of Kerry.. maybe this will make them more scared of Bush and better open to listen.

And the language endorsing Kerry is enthusiastic, not just ABB talk or tepid and qualified.

I'm happy with it.. and hey, maybe the 5 year olds can 'splain it to their folks!
Rev | 10.17.04 - 2:38 am | #

... waitin' for ya'll to catch up...
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:38 am | #

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 - Bill the Troll

I know I should let Bill go hungry (given his intellectual loafing), but I want to teach him to fish, and so I direct him to the context of Big John's sonorific professings (Check out the big brain on Bill!):

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."

See Bill, being a good steward of the earth, striving for peace among nations, promoting social justice, and actively caring for the least among us are works that are fully consistent with the recorded teachings (and actions) of Jesus. You may have heard of him, Bill. He's Bush's favorite political philosopher and the nominal leader of all branches of Christian faith. He said it might be cool if we tried being nice to each other for a change, so he got nailed to a tree for his trouble.

The belief that human life (i.e., spiritual conception) begins at the moment of biological conception, OTOH, is an article of faith, Bill. It is found nowhere in any record of Jesus's sayings that I've ever seen (feel free to direct me to one though). And in a secular, democratic system of government, one that has enshrined as basic principle the separation of church and state, there are moral imperatives to promote socially beneficial works and not to promote specific articles of faith. Ergo, there is no inconsistency and no hypocrisy to Big John's position. Does that help alleviate your concerns regarding the Senator's personal faith?

As for me and mine, we'll happily choose all works and no faith over all faith and no works every time. While we're on the subject though, I am somewhat concerned for your man Bush after reading this:

"There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him;
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed blood;
A heart that plots wicked schemes,
feet that run swiftly to evil,
The false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers." Proverbs 6:16-19

By my count, George W is 7 for 7 on abominations before God. Somebody's gonna have some splainin' to do come Judgement Day!
JeffCO | 10.17.04 - 2:42 am | #

Bill, don't you need to go to bed? You know, so you can get up for church?
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 2:43 am | #

Anti-religious?

What was anti-religious about what I said? I am not against religion.

I am against people trying to codify the dogman of THEIR PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION of their religion as the law for all people. You may practice whatever behavioral restrictions you wish.

And as to stem cell research and abortion being matters of "convenience", that statement just shows you to be either unintelligent or an insensitive prick.

Unintended pregnancies are the single most important cause of chronic poverty in the world. They are also an important basis of the virtual enslavement of women in large parts of the world.

As to stem cells, I'm a molecular biologist, so I know what I'm talking about here. The use of embryonic stem cells, especially cloned ones, holds the very clear promise of curing almost every serious degenerative disease in the world today. It might even substantially extend the human life span. You take an ovary from a woman who is either deceased or had to have it removed for health reasons, stimulate it in-vitro to make lots of eggs, remove the nuclei from those eggs and replace them with somatic cells from your own body, grow the resulting zygote to about 64 cells, then dissociate it and make a permanent cell line that is genetically identical to you, and can be differentiated into any tissue that you might need to cure, say, Parkinson's disease. Are you seriously saying that this ball of 64 cells, totally amorphous and the size of a speck of dust, is a human being? Where does it say that in the bible? You are a whacko authoritarian.

Perhaps if you get Lou Gehrig's disease or Parkinson's, you will have enough time, sitting there totally lucid but utterly immobile, to contemplate the tenuous moral basis of the living hell that you have condemned yourself and all those other people to.

Idiot troll!
Blerb | 10.17.04 - 2:44 am | #

It's true, I don't post here often (twice many months ago, I think). I don't even read the comments except rarely, because--no offense--who cares what any of us thinks anyway? Start your own blog and you'll find the answer to that question pretty quick.

I'm motivated to enter the discussion here not only because I'm baffled by Atrios' criticism of this endorsement, but because that criticism appears to extend to me and my reading ability as well.

Look, I went to college, even had some grad school. I've studied foreign and ancient langauges and read about Derrida and Foucault and stuff. I'll be damned if I understand what is so terrible about this article.

Yes, it may be a little choppy, but when you get into Bush's record of outrages you have to keep your prose to the point if you're going to make any progress.

Yeah, they could've said this or that, but with this administration they could well have written a 12-volume compendium from the pre-911 phase alone.

Anyway, if some of you regulars are really wondering why so many of the rest of us are coming out of the woodwork to oppose Atrios' assessment--even if it means defense of the otherwise execrable Times--it probably has to do with the implied assertion that anyone who doesn't find this editorial shockingly juvenile must be equally deficient in brains and judgement.

Like any educated monkey perceiving an attack on his intellect, I felt compelled to check in here to see if I really might be a mental 5-year-old. I didn't find the answer; I'm sure someone here will be glad to give me one.
hz | 10.17.04 - 2:46 am | #

Advantages of the right: Hearing the word "sodomite" come into use again.

(Laura Kightly, sp?, joke...but so true)
Tucker Carlson's little monkey | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:46 am | #

As long as we're talking bout the NYT--http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/politics/ 17gitmo.html?hp&ex=1098072000&en=e29ccfe1afd6371a& ei=5094&partner=homepage
Rock. | 10.17.04 - 2:47 am | #

Oh JK47 cmon now
You have avoided every single point! Why did you even bother? Chomp! Chomp!

OK dude (or gal..) the key is at 2:20 am.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:48 am | #

Aaaah Eshcatonians, always trying to guide trolls to the sweet light of reason....a futile but noble effort.
Another Bruce | 10.17.04 - 2:48 am | #

Not every ejaculation deserve a name.
Lisa | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:49 am | #

Er, sorry...Front page of tomorrow's edition includes a story about very un-Geneva treatment of the prisoners in Cuba.
Rock. | 10.17.04 - 2:49 am | #

Actually, I found it a very good piece of editorial writing, designed to target swing voters and that small subset of the Bush base who also takes the opinions of the NYT as gospel. A screaming rant of the many and varied ways in which Bush sucks would have been enjoyable for those who never trusted him to begin with, but for those who did, what's needed is heart-searching, hair-rending, and wails of "Betrayed! Betrayed!" All in language accessible to the average 8th grader.

Taken in this light, it's masterfully done. And while I find it as annoying as Atrios does on the personal level, I also know that the editorial isn't written for me, and will be all the more effective for it.
Kevin Andrew Murphy | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:49 am | #

I take issue with the "5 year old" comment. I've just read their endorsement twice through, and while the prose is more light and conversational than the average hard-news stuff, it seems wholly appropriate for explaining the reasons for their choice to the average undecided voter.

Cut them some slack, anyway. They got off the fence on the right (left?) side.
Rob | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:50 am | #

Deserves.

Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

Yeah, that's it. That's my favorite-ever bumpersticker.
Lisa | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:51 am | #

I thought it was a well-written, -organized and -reasoned editorial.

Those who can, write.
Those who can't, blog.
cnote | 10.17.04 - 2:51 am | #

As for me and mine, we'll happily choose all works and no faith over all faith and no works every time.

JeffCO, that was great. Thanks.
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 2:52 am | #

Not every ejaculation deserve a name.

I just name all my ejaculations "Bruce".
Another Bruce | 10.17.04 - 2:53 am | #

" Was this endorsement written by a 5 year old?"

Perhaps Atrios is suggesting that the style of the NYT endorsement was intended, by its author as well as his supervisors and his employer, for the consumption and comprehension of a particular public figure who has recently demonstrated, in 3 consecutive appearances on national television, that he possesses the mentality of a 5 year-old.

Or perhaps not.
The NightWriter | 10.17.04 - 2:54 am | #

Blerv 2:44 am

Cmon now man I'm not even lookin in the bible Just stop it!

If those 64 cells continue on their merry way, what happens?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:55 am | #

Well let me read Blerb 2:44 am a little bit, oh, not the last paragraph...
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:57 am | #

If those 64 cells continue on their merry way, what happens?

Some reasonable percentage of the time, nothing at all. Or are you suggesting that miscarriage is also a crime against humanity?
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 2:57 am | #

I love you, Atrios, but I think this was considerably better-written than most of what washes up on the Times' editorial page these days. My theory is that Gail Collins finally snapped (actually, around about two weeks ago, when the debates started) and said "No. We are going to start living in the real world now." Or words to that effect.

That said, I would like to repeat for the record that my loyalty to Atrios will never be dimmed, regardless of posts with which I might not fully agree. Atrios = teh r0x0r.
Raya | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 2:58 am | #

And hey what's with the "idiot"

HEEEYYYY!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 2:59 am | #

Add me to the hue (crayonish) and cry of: What the hey-uck is wrong with this endorsement, Atrios?!

Granted, I just read the first page, but all's well so far. My boyfriend told me about it and he said it was very good (unlike the WaPo's, which I havent read at all).

No one seems to be getting you, A.
Between that and the NYT's superb Suskind magazine piece showing what a scary nutwit Bush is, (Its flying around the Guardian Talkboard now, too, and screaming off Buzzflash, as well as front page Kos.) this just might be the day to give a tip o the hat to the Gray Lady.

Or is it Grayola?
NYCee | 10.17.04 - 3:00 am | #

"then dissociate it"
Blerb
Please explain.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 3:00 am | #

Bill...what's your problem?

You've been spanked and guided towards information and yet you continue. WTF?

Their merry way?..Fuck off.
'sconi | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 3:01 am | #

By the way, would that or not be "disassociate" ?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 3:01 am | #

NYMary 2:57 am
No I am certainly not and you are injecting rhetorical BS into the discussion.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 3:08 am | #

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. -Bill the Troll

[Throwing out more troll kibble] Well, Bill, I do think that's at least a defensible position to take (although I'm not at all clear how you know that "the vast majority of cases" are for convenience sake- perhaps you have interviewed everyone? Or do you have some extrasensory perceptions you haven't mentioned?). I am curious though; how do you feel about George W's "Fry 'em - it'll teach 'em a lesson" philosophy of ending actual rather than potential human life? What do you think his making cruel and feeble jokes about the condemned reveals regarding his moral fiber? Are he and Kerry morally equivalent or do you have some hierarchy of offense by which you judge? Indifferent minds kind of want to know. Or not. Whatever.
JeffCO | 10.17.04 - 3:11 am | #

"Oh JK47 cmon now
You have avoided every single point! Why did you even bother? Chomp! Chomp!

OK dude (or gal..) the key is at 2:20 am."

Ooh, now Bill's getting all cryptic. He refers me back to his 2:20 post, which itself refers back to his 1:58 post.

OK, Bill, I guess you're claiming you're not religious, or at least that you don't oppose a woman's right to choose because of religion. Of course, you won't come right out and say that, because my guess is that you actually are a Bible-thumping fundie pretending to object to stem-cell research and the right to choose on moral rather than religious grounds.

I'm avoiding every point? No, I'm taking your absurd argument a step further. I started out swimming around in my dad's nut sac, but that doesn't mean I have millions of brothers and sisters in there. The question "Where does life begin" is a philosophical question that none of us has the answers to, especially not some drooling dumbshit troll posting on liberal weblogs at 3:00 AM.

Guess what, Bill? Nobody gives a shit what your definition of life is. And you come off like you are so concerned about the preciousness of human life and that you must warn us that the evil John Kerry will lead us all to doom for supporting stem cell research. There are people being brutally maimed and murdered every day in Iraq, for no good goddamned reason. What are your feelings about that, Bill?
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 3:13 am | #

Given the Trib's endoresement of Bush, the newspaper has forever forfeited the right to claim the role of a newsapaper of record.
Anonymous | 10.17.04 - 3:14 am | #

BOYCOTT THE THE TRIB.
Anonymous | 10.17.04 - 3:15 am | #

Bill,

You shallow fuck. There are people at the other end of your theoretical ethics.

Recently, a friend of mine had to fight a religious hospital to be allowed to allow her fetuses to die. They were twins, and one was dead already, but the other was still dying. She herself was at great risk, and had to fight before a fucking ethics committee to be allowed to let her children go.

Until you grow a uterus, shut the fuck up.

And on that note of absolute honesty, and not in fact "rhetorical BS", I'm off to bed.
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 3:19 am | #

The Grayola Lady (In deference to Atrios, I dub her as such.) has sucked like with her dumb stable of columnists, including Friedman the Friendly NeoConLite, Miller, et al (we all know the culprits). But I detect an attempt to do better in recent weeks. Just the fact that I am reading it again means its getting better. I also liked its tough position towards Kerry a while back about his war position. Couldnt go near it for over a year, but it seems to have done some progressive penance, rehab ... something.

(I did find the editorial about Sinclair a bit maddening because they chose to say the FCC made the right decision, "unfortunately", blah blah ... and I think it was a wrong decision)

Oh, and as for the sytlistic criticism, I will have to read the whole thing, but I found it to be just fine for its intended purpose.

Would be nice if Atrios would elaborate on what he would have liked to have seen and not seen in it.
NYCee | 10.17.04 - 3:22 am | #

Well JeffCO unlike every one of you I will play, and that is more than I can say for you sorry leftist - well OK I'll stop.

You see, you perform a characterization that has no rhetoric to back it up.

"...George W's "Fry 'em - it'll teach 'em a lesson" philosophy of ending actual rather than potential human life?"

You can characterize it as such but there is no rhetoric to back up your point.

On the other hand, you (to generalize, I admit) have destroyed at or approaching 40 MILLION. 4.0.M.I.L.L.I.O.N. Let's just leave it at that.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 3:24 am | #

Perhaps it was written so that other journalists could undestand it.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, grammarians and prescriptivists.
So this editorial wasn't a clip 'n' save. Big deal.

If the paper had endorsed Bush, you'd be complaining for different reasons. But, thankfully, the paper dissed Bush. In particular, it dissed a Bush second term. The paper of record is willing to wish for change. Like someone wrote upthread, it is more ABB than Pro-Kerry.

This is a good thing. Hopefully, other major papers (koff>thewashingtonpost>koff) will follow the leader and do their duty and not endorse Bush Deux's first elected term.

(" Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency....")

Thank God. Now for the People to avoid the mistake of four years ago and elect the better person.

Onward.
pbb | 10.17.04 - 3:25 am | #

HAHAHA, Lisa you rule.
thecreature | 10.17.04 - 3:25 am | #

Just for the record to NYMary and all, when there are medical considerations, I profess no principle. But we all kniow that these are rhetorical devices to buttress the argument.
Bill | 10.17.04 - 3:29 am | #

Oh gawd. I know there's no point. I really do. I just read posts like those from Bill and want to quote Doctor McCoy's immortal line (THE best line in the entire Star Trek canon, IMO) -

"YOU! WHAT PLANET IS THIS???"

And why are people like you on it, anyway?

Fuckwit.
Other Lisa | 10.17.04 - 3:55 am | #

[Last call]

Bill the Troll - Huh? I have absolutely no idea WTF you just said to me. Either your superior intellect and articulation has surpassed my limited understanding, or you're making even less sense than earlier.

I can understand that a self-professed troll would disregard my earlier comments that attempted to address your assertions directly and rationally. That's par for the course. But complaining that I am insufficiently rhetorical (and failing to answer my question) because I am asking your opinion of the man who condemned 152 actual persons to death while governor of Texas, and inhumanly mocked one of them in an interview to that stalwart of the left Tucker Carlson? That's just sad, even by troll standards. I presume if you actually cared even a little about the subject, you would not let my inferior arguments prevent you from clarifying your views. And didn't you just attack NYMary for being rhetorical? Is there a 'just right' amount of rhetoric outlined in the Troll Handbook?

But I'll ask again, leaving aside abortion (and related) issues, what is your position on the death penalty and on Bush's use of it? Is it all a numbers game to you? Were you by any chance adopted (and perhaps perilously close to not existing yourself)? Are you so taken by your own cleverness that you really don't care that you have failed to engage anyone at all? I know, you're a troll. But still, is it really that much fun for you?
JeffCO | 10.17.04 - 3:59 am | #

MYOB = Draft Dodger
RJ | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 4:02 am | #

Just a late-night aside.. I listen to "pro-lifers" only when their "pro-life" posture also addresses the death penalty, war, capital punishment, and assault weapons and Sat. nite specials, not to mention the proper care and feeding of the lives that they would so generously save--and of those lives that their dogma would risk or destroy. As far as I'm concerned, until those other value-of-life issues are addressed with equal fervor, the whole discussion is just control-freaks' boondoggle.

Funny, I've met only a tiny handful of real pro-lifers in my entire life. To those I listen with great respect.
Rev | 10.17.04 - 4:04 am | #

You silly shitheads just don't get it, do you?

The NYT editorial is a lunatic anti-Bush diatribe that destroys any supposed credibility the paper had left. Its lies will be picked apart by the right-leaning press for the rest of the campaign. Anything the NYT comes up with on its news page between now and Election Day is now questionable.

Mature, rational, professional journalists do not write tripe like this editorial. Desperate ideologues do.
RJ | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 4:08 am | #

Dammit Other Lisa, I'm a troll, not a Terran!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 4:10 am | #

OK RJ, it's late, I'm tired, is this sarcasm, or...?

Anyway, never mind. sleeping now.
Other Lisa | 10.17.04 - 4:10 am | #

JK47
"There are people being brutally maimed and murdered every day in Iraq, for no good goddamned reason. What are your feelings about that, Bill?"

It gives me no pleasure. And many say otherwise, and don't give credence to the intellectual foundations upon which this war is based. They therefore place themselves outside the discussion, outside the realm of commentation on world events.

But to say it is for "no good goddamned reason" well, perhaps you should ask the millions of Afghans who voted last week. Or the millions of Iraqis who don't like totalitarian sectarian OR religious rule any more that you would, and who will vote on those considerations early in the coming year.

I hereby charge you all with adhering to party political preferences over your own principles, those of individual liberty and freedom for all. And that is your political conundrum. Because Republicans were in power when events and time collided, you oppose them instead of our common danger, those who would impose a true totalitarian belief system on us all, if they could.

And that is the second great inconsistancy in your grand edifice, which you yet still think can lead the American experiment forward.

But even I, great consumer of the second bottle, and even brand, of the fine Scotch at my disposal, can see the hollow shadows from which you shout, scream, and holler, like the befuddled masses of days ancient and past, and must retire at some point from these ruminations. Too late, you may say, but buried herein are the seeds of your renewal, and the regeneration of the bothe of ours past glories!! !! !!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 4:11 am | #

Crap- now I've gone and shot my whole wad. Does anyone know if mental masturbation is a sin?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 4:15 am | #

OH, I get it. Bill's a drunk.
Other Lisa | 10.17.04 - 4:17 am | #

If by drunk you mean on sweet lady liberty, you bet I am! And the fact that use of alcohol not only reduces my sperm count but also increases the risk of genetic abnormalities in my little fellers and thus damages my ability to create healthy living beings causes me not the least bit of concern! For I am a troll!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 4:22 am | #

Speaking of Reverse Decisions

And you can bet your bottom dollar if you aren't prepared for a theocratic takeover by right wing fundamentalists, you better brush up on your separation of church and state debate skills. You're going to need them.

Two weeks until Freedom.
syntallic | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 4:32 am | #

4:15 and 4:22 are FAKES. You know they are not me. You can tel. Certainly now at least. Crummy stupid dumdum lefty name stealin (no rightguys ever did that that I ever saw) anti-trolls!

HAH-HAAA! What nitwits! I hit you at your core and you don't even know it! Who's drunk and on what?!?
Bill | 10.17.04 - 4:32 am | #

It gives me no pleasure.

Hahaha, what a sicko. Did anyone ask you if these deaths gave you pleasure?
Boronx | 10.17.04 - 4:36 am | #

"But to say it is for "no good goddamned reason" well, perhaps you should ask the millions of Afghans who voted last week. Or the millions of Iraqis who don't like totalitarian sectarian OR religious rule any more that you would, and who will vote on those considerations early in the coming year."

Oh, give me a fucking break, you idiot. First of all, we're not talking about the Afghanistan war, which I supported but which Bush fucked up. And the "elections" in Iraq are going to be a farce. You know it, I know it, we all know it. There will be no government accepted in Iraq other than the puppet government we install. You think we're gonna let Moqtada Al-Sadr run Iraq, even if he were to win an election?

Perhaps you should ask some Iraqi families who have had their sons and daughters incinerated how excited they are about the upcoming elections. They should be easy to find, since there are so many of them.

We're not doing the Iraqis any favor by being there, and the likelihood of an Iraqi democracy blooming is about nil. Get your head out of your ass and take a look at reality. The war in Iraq is OVER. WE HAVE LOST. WE SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS FOR NO REASON. Learn to live with the blood that is on your hands, troll. Don't act like the murderous political party you support are the fucking white hats, and don't pretend like Iraqis are going to be better off when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over. This war isn't about democracy and freedom, it's about controlling another country's precious strategic resource, oil, so the oligarchs who control the energy industry can further consolidate their death grip on America.

No, I don't give credence to the "intellectual foundations on which this war is based," because they are a crock of discredited bullshit. We were supposed to be greeted with flowers, not car bombs. We were supposed to be there because Saddam had shitloads of WMDs. Iraq was to be the shining beacon for the rest of the Middle East to follow.

This utopian scenario has not panned out, and instead we have Hell On Earth. And that isn't partisan rhetoric, my dimwitted friend. Those are just the plain, simple, unbiased facts.

So suck on that.
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 4:38 am | #

I commend you sir, on your willingness to sacrifice the lives of others for your political ideals. How very noble. How Chrisitian.
Boronx | 10.17.04 - 4:39 am | #

Uh, maybe because the only people the endorsement has a chance of influencing can only understand stuff written in crayon?
Collin Elliot | 10.17.04 - 4:39 am | #

Uh, maybe because the only people the endorsement has a chance of influencing can only understand stuff written in crayon?
Collin Elliot

i think it's called "no [dumbshit] left behind"
syntallic | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 4:41 am | #

what's the point of making an endorsement which reads as if it were written in crayon?

From the man who wrote:

Let's hope that in the wee hours of the morning of Nov. 3, the sign goes out, oh my bitches...

Atrios, you rock.
Boronx | 10.17.04 - 4:43 am | #

Is that the problem? That the article is too purple? Look, this is the NYT we're talking about here, not the TLS. If you're expecting an academic level of dignity on the page, or an audience to read it that might find it persuasive, you not only haven't been paying any attention to the Times this past decade; you haven't been paying any attention to the country at large. These are shrill times we live in. This kind of endorsement is about the only sort that's likely to have any sort of effect. Beyond that, the tone and composition seems normal enough compared to any of its contemporaries (although I prefer the Boston Globe's endorsement).
hz | 10.17.04 - 4:59 am | #

Count me as one who doesn't get Atrios's slam. As others have said, NYT endorsement lays out a hell of a lot W. & minions have done to this country. Style doesn't matter. Content does.
marialuisa | 10.17.04 - 5:08 am | #

JK47
Now that we're on to Iraq I'm well aware that it's some serious stuff, believe me.

"You think we're gonna let Moqtada Al-Sadr run Iraq, even if he were to win an election."

No hell no. Even if he wins an election. First of all, the bastard should not even be allowed to stand for election. He caused much murder and mayhem, "mischief" in the local terminology, which is much more serious than the connontation that we give to the term.

Among other things, al Sadr's militia was involved in much death and destruction, including the harrassment of Christian shops (because they sold liquor), not to mention a massacre which occurred in one of the (religious!, it's OK over there, right?) courts established in his name. C'mon let's talk about that you bunch of secularists.

Oh yeah, and even though this surely doen't matter to you, what about AMERICAN soldiers killed by the uprising he instigitated?

Look, joke boys, I'm well aware of the difficulties we are encountering in Iraq. And you terrorist sympathizers aren't helping worth a pot of beans. Like I said above, since your party is not in power, Bush is the greater evil. Well, you know what? You and the French!
Bill | 10.17.04 - 5:08 am | #

"Bill" dresses up in cum-stained dresses and fantasises about being Monica Lewinsky.

It's the source of most of his hostility. Let it go, "Bill".
TelltaleHeart | 10.17.04 - 5:25 am | #

It ain't bad, I think it's a pretty good endorsement.
aJesusDemocrat | 10.17.04 - 5:29 am | #

Of course the last thing we'd want in a Democratic Iraq is the Iraqis picking their leaders when Bill's perfectly capable of doing it for them.

But Bill is certainly a phony, since no Bush supporter could write this:

First of all, the bastard should not even be allowed to stand for election. He caused much murder and mayhem, "mischief" in the local terminology

without dying of acute terminal irony.
Boronx | 10.17.04 - 5:37 am | #

George Orwell Bush contest -- cash prizes for best statements by Bush administration officials resembling "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength."

http://tinyurl.com/5znu6
Frederick | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 5:40 am | #

Bill:

Hey, moron, if we were to hold actual, legitimate elections in Iraq, who do you think would win? Nice, America-friendly "democratic" corporate types? Fuck no. Radical fundamentalists would win. And whoever loses the elections would damn sure do everything they could to kill the people who won. You think the Shiites and Sunnis are just going to set aside hundreds of years of violence and bloodshed and turn into modern-day Jeffersons and Washingtons?

My point about al-Sadr was purely hypothetical. I'm not advocating that he should be president of Iraq, and you know it. I was using him as an example to point out what folly the notion of a "democratic" Iraq is. If there were real elections there, the people who would win would not be the people we want running the joint, trust me. And so it will never happen. We will install a puppet regime, and our fine AMERICAN boys and girls will be dying in the desert over there supporting this hand-picked regime for many years to come. We may hold some farcical, phony elections, but if these motherfuckers can steal an election right under our noses in the U.S., what makes you think they're going to operate on the up and up in Iraq?

"Terrorist sympathizers?" Fuck you, asshole. Take your McCarthyist rhetoric back to Little Green Nazis or wherever the fuck you came from. Anyone who disagrees with you or your precious fuckup dry drunk president is "sympathizing with the terrorists." I guess dissent is at odds with your thuggish, simplistic version of "patriotism." We should just accept and support everything our president says, just like Britney Spears said in F/911. I'm sure you were very supportive of President Clinton while he led us through eight years of peace, prosperity and international admiration.

There wasn't a problem with "terrorists" inside Iraq before we went in there. George W. Cunt whacked the hornet's nest with a 2x4, and now 1,100 of our brave servicemen have paid the ultimate price. But at least Saddam isn't going to attack us with his imaginary weapons.

Keep lobbing the softballs, jerkoff. You are a particularly enjoyable pinata to batter. Enjoy your last two weeks with your failure of a president. Spend some quality time with him. I'm sure you're going to miss all the fear, warmongering and bumbling incompetence. But fret not-- you and your freeptard ilk will have your hands full making John Kerry's life miserable, regardless of his performance as President. See, your mind's already made up, hypocrite.
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 5:54 am | #

One more thing about Bill, and then I'm going to bed. It's almost 3:00 in lovely, Blue-state Los Angeles.

He's actually a pretty fun troll. Maybe we could keep him around here as some kind of mascot. You can see him getting more and more pissed off as the thread progresses, grasping at straws, vainly attempting to make some eloquent point but ultimately sinking into a miasma of tired, generic wingnut talking points. He actually had to resort to the "France" card.

Debating with Bill is kind of like playing Madden Football on "Rookie" setting. You don't really have to concentrate very much, and you can just have fun racking up a bunch of points. Normally I'd feel guilty for troll-feeding, but it's so late that it's not getting in the way of any other serious issues. So thanks, Bill, for being just the right level of dumbass.
JK47 | 10.17.04 - 6:05 am | #

Bill, if you haven't passed out in a scotch-flavored pool of vomit yet, I'd like to help you out.

I'd like to tell you how to be a more effective troll.

A common (and very amusing) mistake you knuckledraggers make is invading Atrios' blog and throwing around terms that are reviled in freeper world but aren't perceived as insults here.

Example 1: liberal. A term that means tolerant, broad-minded, open to new ideas.

Example 2: secular humanist.someone who believes in rationality, human-centered philosophy, and the separation of church and state.

Example 3: Lover of the French.Self-explanatory.

Now, Bill - this may come as a shock, but there are quite a few of us who don't see foreign policy in terms of black and white and don't believe that SOVEREIGN NATIONS are good or evil in direct proportion to the extent that they agreed with our decision to go to war in Iraq.

To me and to people who think like me, yelling "You and the French!" is the same thing as yelling "You and the Nepalese!"

I AM a liberal, secular humanist, and proud of it. Calling me that insults me to the exact same degree that "conservative, religious person" insults you.
-
Fielding Mellish | 10.17.04 - 6:05 am | #

If your SANE americans fail to oust Bush in the "election"..... are you aware that all you have to do is.... ALL go on strike.

ALL OF YOU.

Period.

Stay home.
Quit buying non-essentials.
Turn off your TV's.
Read a good book (War and Peace comes to mind).

And wait for the news of his resignation.

Simle. It would probably take no more than 10 days.

Given the SANE amongst you actually RUN the country, its systems, its intellectual infrastructure... the whole edifice would come to a grinding halt in a matter of hours.

What is your problem? All too cowardly for people power direct action?
me again | 10.17.04 - 6:08 am | #

Bonjour tout le monde.

I love France, too.
My snot-faced c0cksucking primeminister likes it, too. You know... tony blur.

Monsieur Richard Perle has a house there... in Gordes.

Their farsighted President WARNED Boosh not to try (and fail) in what the French had attempted in Algeria.

Which is why he is so hated.

For being freakin' RIGHT. (the best reason for hating anybody, generally)

Au revoir.
meagain | 10.17.04 - 6:13 am | #

It was a spectacular endorsement. You're a fucking idiot, Atrios
Econo Buzz | 10.17.04 - 6:17 am | #

the main problem that i have with the endorsement is-- why did it take those sluts over at the New York Times until three weeks before the Presidential Election to ascertain the evidentiary truths surrounding this maladministration and its overt corporate criminality?

evidentally, the main reason why the article reads as though it was written by an 8th grader is because the NYT has been so out of practice in writing straightforward, honest prose -- their forte is hedging, evasive, and non-committal weasel-mongering.
x174 | 10.17.04 - 6:36 am | #

God,all of you are upso late! I thought the endorsement was FINE-I don't ever remember the Times "enthusiastically" endorsing anyone for President before today. Yes, the editorial was more about Pretzel-Boy, but I think that reelection races do end up being about the incumbent. As for me, I'm like Agent Starling-I want the lambs to stop screaming.
bougie | 10.17.04 - 6:42 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 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:12 am | #

here ya go.

http://www.startribune.com/stori...61/ 5035411.html
marsh | 10.17.04 - 6:52 am | #

What is so bad about it? A clear and convincing endorsement - I liked it.
fgs | 10.17.04 - 7:03 am | #

Atrios has a bit of the curmedgeon in him.
Sue | 10.17.04 - 7:17 am | #

Hey, dudes.

Thees editorial, man... I coulda written eet in espray paint, man...
Rico Puerta, Nueva Jork | 10.17.04 - 7:19 am | #

The editorial is fine. WTF?
Evor Lark | 10.17.04 - 7:32 am | #

I will put off my subscription cancellation for a little while longer (after reading it for 35 years).
Bob H | 10.17.04 - 7:48 am | #

The endorsement is fine and well-written for an editorial. It started off praising John Kerry and then quickly tore into Bush's record, giving point by point where he messed up. Most of the editorial is an indictment of Bush, as it should be for an anti-incumbent endorsement. Then it got back to Kerry and showed how he would fix the problems ailing the country. Unequivocal and clear, no dancing on the pin.

The prose is typical NYT prose, no poetry there. And how could you do poetry when you are doing a laundry list (of Bush's failures)?

NYT has no guilt conscience. It has been consistently against most Bush policies. OTOH, it will be fun to see how Wapo would do the Kerry endorsement, as it is widely expected to. There we will see a contortionist at work.
ecoast | 10.17.04 - 7:51 am | #

Vewy pithy, Atrioth
gary in fl | 10.17.04 - 7:54 am | #

OTOH, it will be fun to see how Wapo would do the Kerry endorsement, as it is widely expected to.

Note David Broder today in WP, discussing the impending fiscal implosion of the US. He assigns equal blame to the two candidates, neglecting to mention in the interest of neutrality that one of them is responsible for exacerbating the crisis!
Bob H | 10.17.04 - 7:59 am | #

Probably it would have been better rhetorically if Safire had written it, but I'll settle for this version.

Five yards against Atrios for offsides on this one. Big frickin' deal.
SteveLG | 10.17.04 - 8:01 am | #

The A-Man gets a mention and a link over at the Beeb along with Markos. For those who don't want to click it's a journalist/blogger complaining about bloggers disdaining the MSM (mainstream media).

.
spork_incident | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 8:02 am | #

They did the same thing to Al Gore 4 years ago. Few candidates for President were more “squeaky clean” than Al Gore, but that didn’t stop Karen Hughes from expressing angry outrage at every minor criticism he directed at Bush. The result was that the election ended up being far closer than it should/could have been. Based solely on the record of the previous four years, Gore should have won by a substantial landslide. Based solely on the record of the previous four years, George Bush should be losing by a landslide today. Instead, this election is still too close to call. Why?

It’s because Republican strategists know now---just as they knew four years ago---that the KEY swing voters depend entirely on their “impressions” of the candidates. Republicans are savvy; they are cunning, and they know how to manipulate these people. Most Democrats may have been able to see through the phony outrage that the Cheneys expressed re: Kerry’s comment on their daughter’s lesbianism, but those impressionable swing voters saw only clips of angry outrage being expressed by the Cheneys and heard that this had become a big issue. Sadly, even though John Kerry won all three debates, his people lost the spin on the last one.

John Kerry could have turned the whole thing around if he had simply ridiculed the phony outrage they were expressing and exposed it for the cynical political stratagem that it was. By doing so he would have been able to further define the Republicans as conniving Con Artists who are trying to manipulate trusting voters with their devious duplicity. Unfortunately, Democratic candidates and their advisors tend to be stunned when they are targeted by publicly expressed Republican anger and feel as though they need to defend themselves. How should they respond? I suggest that Kerry’s rapid response team stay in constant contact with Jon Stewart for the duration of the campaign.

The kind of humor that will help Kerry in these last weeks is not more lame jokes like the one he uttered during the last debate (I had an immediate flashback to the failed attempts at humor of Mike Dukakis). All Kerry needs to do is give himself permission to start ridiculing Bush regularly from now on. Every time Bush falsely characterizes Kerry in a speech, John needs to mercilessly ridicule him for it and use the opportunity to define Bush as desperate and pathetic.

That is what Bush is doing to Kerry every time he stands up in front of his favorable crowds. Indeed, he has no record to run on, but ridiculing Kerry is the one thing that is keeping Bush in the race in the eyes of the swing voters. They really, really respond to that stuff. Get Jon Stewart's cell phone number, John. You're going to want to stay in constant contact with him from now on...

James
www.taxwisdom.org
Taxwisdom.org | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 8:20 am | #

Maybe the editorial should have said this?

The president's certitude - the idea that he can see into people's souls and that God tells him what is right, then W. tells us if he feels like it - is disturbing. It equates disagreeing with him to disagreeing with Him.

The conservative bishops' certitude - the idea that you can't be a good Catholic if you diverge from certain church-decreed mandates or if you want to keep your religion and politics separate - is also disturbing.

America is awash in selective piety, situational moralists and cherry-picking absolutists.

When Maureen is good, she's very, very good.
Robert M. Jeffers | 10.17.04 - 8:32 am | #

They could have drawn a picture in crayon for all I care, as long as they endorsed Kerry.

This phrase is enough for me:

Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure

I like to see that in print.
emd | 10.17.04 - 8:43 am | #

Sorry Atrios, no points on this one. I go with the “committee defense” (see JW) along with the various comments related to our country's relatively poor reading skills.
Perhaps the point of making an endorsement which reads as if it were written in crayon is to lay out in painfully clear language a very simple summation of what is apparently incomprehensible to some citizens.
BUT: I'd hate to think I agree with everything a person says.
have a nice Sunday
dusty | 10.17.04 - 8:55 am | #

http://www.georgewbush.com/searc...rch/ search.aspx
I just conducted a search of Bush Cheney newspaper endorsements on their official website - http://www.georgewbush.com/searc.../ search.aspxite
Guess what came up:
NO DOCUMENTS FOUND
BL | 10.17.04 - 9:21 am | #

The NYT enrages me on a daily basis. Atrios sez Crayon? 5-yr olds? Lemme at 'em; I was ready to get pissed... clicked through... started reading... waited for the bullshit to come... hmm, maybe next page... huh? WTF? It was actually... pretty good. Pedantic, straight-up, declarative, no-frills expository writing -- true enough. However, as a laundry list of Bushie's shameful deeds... OUCH! Plus, the endorsement of Kerry wasn't timid, and described him in terms like strong, sensible, aggressive and innovative. I like it. Watch for the tidal wave of local papers to take their cue from this.
Stone Free | 10.17.04 - 9:27 am | #

Atrios' indictment is completely unfair. While this piece was evidently hastily composed and insufficiently copy-edited, there's nothing wrong with the message itself. It makes the case against Bush more comprehensively and more concisely than Kerry himself has ever been able to do.

This document is far superior to the
Post's endorsement, which is an insult to the intellect.

Partisans who are in the business of media criticism do no favors, either to themselves or to their causes, by giving in to the ranting impulse over comparatively small issues of style when the message is spot on.

We have all been bitching about the NYT for months; now is the time for us to STFU, be grateful, and then go to Starbucks and buy a copy.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 9:43 am | #

I'm not marketing for Starbucks here. That's just the only place within ten miles of me that I can get the NYT.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 9:46 am | #

I agree with Atrios - the NYT endorsement does not show the proper 'outrage' - Jon Stewart has shown us that, not only is it okay to cut through the bullshit - it's imperative that we do so.
Dorothy M. Ligon | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 9:53 am | #

Dave (Badger fan): Thank you!

For those of you who did not see it, Matthews was on Today sermonizing that "W looks like he's winning" on the campaign trail while Kerry is "scolding" and "lecturing" a "quiet" audience. GMAFB!! Then again, "Today" led with the story of the Reserve unit that failed to follow the convoy order, and not whether JK hates lesbians. . . . .

[GMAFB "Give me a f@#$ break"]
dignity and honor | 10.17.04 - 10:07 am | #

For all those who say this editorial was written at a 7th, 8th, 9th etc. grade level, let me just say:

You must be the fortunate ones who have not had to deal with student writing recently.

I taught in a writing across the curriculum program at an Ivy League university, and most of the students I worked with who were not English majors could not have produced an editorial half as coherent as this one if their lives depended on it.

It was quite the depressing experience.
Kate | 10.17.04 - 10:07 am | #

PS: Who's a fan of Bob Schrum??
dignity and honor | 10.17.04 - 10:10 am | #

Atrios asks:

"what's the point of making an endorsement which reads as if it were written in crayon?"

It's because the only people to whom this endorsement matters are the people who are too stupid to realize how debased and evil the Bush administration is. You have to write simply to reach the morons!
Nancy | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 10:13 am | #

from Editor and Publisher:

NEW YORK They weren't exactly giant surprises, but Senator John Kerry will take them, picking up two more major editorial endorsements on Sunday, this time from The Minneapolis Star-Tribune in swing state Minnesota and The New York Times, which has national impact. Both papers used unusually harsh language in attacking the incumbent.

In E&P's exclusive daily endorsement tally, this gives Kerry a 15-13 edge on President Bush but widens his margin in the combined circulation of the papers that back him from 3-1 to nearly 5-1, with an edge of about 4 million to 850,000 (a complete chart will follow later today).

The chart's not up yet, as far as I can tell.
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 10:14 am | #

I agree with Atrios - the NYT endorsement does not show the proper 'outrage' - Jon Stewart has shown us that, not only is it okay to cut through the bullshit - it's imperative that we do so.

Stewart would never, ever have gotten that appearance on CNN the other day had they had any idea that he was going to do what he did. He will never, ever have that opportunity again, which is probably what he was so painfully aware of at the opening of the show, hunched over the table in front of him staring at his hands.

Even so, they had to wait for a day on which the Douchebag of Liberty wasn't around.

Jon Stewart's fifteen minutes of media glory may rapidly come to a close. We shall see.

In sny case, shrillness is always best avoided in an advocacy piece, inasmuch as it refocuses the reader's attention from the message itself to "wow, this person is really, really angry. I should be careful about taking what he says seriously."

Rants posing as editorial endorsements are not going to win many votes.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 10:17 am | #

Interesting piece here on the editing of news photos.
Out and About | 10.17.04 - 10:27 am | #

Kate: In some ways, that shows the Ivy effort at diversity. They are trying to admit kids who dont have the prep and high-end public training in writing. Imagine a kind from an inner city HS admitted because he is of color or white from a different demographic, even, god forbid, a football player. They give them remedial writing at the Ivies. It speaks more to the reading/writing levels at most High Schools.
Peterboy | 10.17.04 - 10:50 am | #

Out & About,
That was a really interesting article! Of course I noticed the debate stuff, but the analysis of the photos was fascinating.
NYMary | 10.17.04 - 10:50 am | #

For all those who say this editorial was written at a 7th, 8th, 9th etc. grade level, let me just say:
.
You must be the fortunate ones who have not had to deal with student writing recently.
.
I taught in a writing across the curriculum program at an Ivy League university, and most of the students I worked with who were not English majors could not have produced an editorial half as coherent as this one if their lives depended on it.

Thank you (seriously) for sharing. We currently have on public exhibition in the White House a classic example of the sullen mediocrity the Ivies are capable of producing, even endorsing.

And I do not doubt that his daughter is even worse.

I hesitate to invoke the tired rhetoric of jerking knees, but I suspect that we are so used to being told to think badly of the Times that the pattern has become engrained.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 10:54 am | #

Sure, it's "simple" and tepid - but a tepid vote for Kerry, or even a tepid, ABB-motivated vote for Kerry still counts.

The people to whom this is targeted won't be reading the excellent (and very SCARY) piece in the NYT Mag on "Faith based" vs. "Reality Based." And that's OK.

Someone needs to speak to those who can only read a little.
VCDartay | 10.17.04 - 10:58 am | #

Could be photo editing but remember the Bushies are great at set up. Rushmore in background, Mission Accomplished. (If their Iraq fantasy were real that would have been all over the advt air this fall.) I have seen them send their "lighting guy and advance men" exactly 24 hours ahead of an event to track the sunlight and test their lighting. No shadows. Perfect backdrop. Remember the podium in the middle of the audience at the GOP convention with the cross-embedded motif? They got it down.
Peterboy | 10.17.04 - 10:59 am | #

SIMMUH DOWN ATRIOS! The editorial is actually well written. Are you hyped up on java this morning?
Jamie | 10.17.04 - 11:03 am | #

In some ways, that shows the Ivy effort at diversity. They are trying to admit kids who dont have the prep and high-end public training in writing. Imagine a kind from an inner city HS admitted because he is of color or white from a different demographic, even, god forbid, a football player. They give them remedial writing at the Ivies. It speaks more to the reading/writing levels at most High Schools.

That wasn't her point. Her point was that the fact that we're deriding this particular editorial as juvenile simply indicates that we're out of touch with juvenile writing.

I am one of those kids who was admitted to a private university without adequate training in writing. Ironically, I grew up not in an inner city, but in a Midwestern small town notorious for having graduated from its public high school one of our most famous English-manglers. Often, it's not facility with the language we lack, but merely familiarity with standards of style and acceptable presentation.

The scandal of college athletics is a different problem altogether. That is most often a matter not of remedial schooling, but of diluted standards, student exploitation, and outright academic fraud.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 11:09 am | #

Jeez-O-Pete, y'all still at it? Who gives a fuck how well the silly thing was writ, when it says all the right things? Or at least the one thing that matters?
Besides, we all come here for Atrios' politics, not his Lit Crit.
G Goober Goober, EFB, HSG | 10.17.04 - 11:26 am | #

Written by a five year old? Reckless comments in order to appear hip and cool are neither.
Anonymous | 10.17.04 - 12:17 pm | #

What are you talking about? it's perfectly fine.
minya | 10.17.04 - 1:33 pm | #

I think the NYT endorsement is fine. It is a systematic rundown of the major disasters of the Bush administration. It reminds us all, in case we have forgotten, what Bush and his crew have done wrong in their nearly four years in charge. I really don't get your complaint here.
janeboatler | 10.17.04 - 2:36 pm | #

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 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 1:15 am | #

Bill, ya'll are following the Mad Hatter. Bush describes how Jesus is his moral guide and savior, then ignores the core wisdom and philosophy of Christ in the matters of life, loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, and helping the poor.

Judas betrayed Christ for only 30 pieces of silver, so one thing I can say about Bush: he held out for a far richer payout before betraying his Lord.
Alice | 10.17.04 - 2:41 pm | #

to Theodoric:
At least, as Jon Stewart himself pointed out, he and his gang can sleep at night.
All he wants is for the TV media to cut out the bullshit.
Crossfire is an absolutely awful program - I never watch it anymore - the only way I know what was said on Friday is that it was of great interest to bloggers, and they, the bloggers, have published the transcript and taped the dialogue. If you haven't seen it or watched it, you should take the trouble - you'll find it worthwhile.
(However, I ALWAYS watch The Daily Show - it's not only enjoyable, it's brilliant while poking satirical fun at the media.)
The bloggers are way ahead of the game - if they don't win it for Kerry this time, they'll win it for the Dems in 2008, for sure - somehow, someway, sometime, somebody has to tell the truth.
Dorothy M. Ligon | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 3:01 pm | #

Atrios, as someone who works in the area of persuasive writing I can tell you from experience that that's the kind of writing people understand. So be happy and be grateful.
M. | 10.17.04 - 3:09 pm | #

"... written by a five-year-old?"... "... written in crayon?" ... " ... civics lesson?"

Those are the sort of slash-and-burn characterizations that are common currency here in the blogosphere. But they're not the sort of rhetorical flourishes that can run (yet) at major metro dailies.

Yes, such editorials are usually written by committee, if for no other reason to give them a studied veneer which, given the heated nature of this election season, isn't necessarily a bad thing when coming from a major news source.

And it the NYT editorial provokes such responses, I can only imagine the gnashing of teeth to come at the fresh meat of the Chicago Tribune's endorsement of Bush.
Wordman | 10.17.04 - 3:28 pm | #

That endorsement was superb. Yes, it would have been nice to have more about Kerry, but the merciless evisceration of Bush and his administration was astonishing -- this is the editorial page of the newspaper of record. There was absolutely no attempt to couch this in "nuanced" (read: cowardly) language. The gloves were off. Good on them.
DAC | 10.17.04 - 3:32 pm | #

Atrios should update his NYT Edtorial criticism post to say what he says in a later post:

Part of it's because I didn't realize until this morning that I didn't write what I meant to write, which was that the editorial was 'written for a 5 year old,' not as I wrote 'by' one.

Else, I suspect the comments will continue to flow - adding no value because of the misunderstanding/typo.

On the matter of the WaPo and the impending financial ruin of the US of A, I believe it could happen, but 'could' is a long way from 'will'. The economist self-admittedly predicted financial doom for Ireland 15 years ago, and were proved totally wrong. Who knew?
Peter | Homepage | 10.17.04 - 3:54 pm | #

Speaking as someone who loaths the NYT, I found no fault with the endorsement either. The prose is bland and the tone is lecturing, sure; but so is everything served up in that rag. And at least the content hit the spot for once.
Giles | 10.17.04 - 4:02 pm | #

Crossfire is an absolutely awful program

It's Jerry Springer for Limbots.

But look, it's not going to change.
The only way anyone will be able to change it is if we return to the broadcast regulatory climate of the 1970s, and make the FCC get serious about forcing broadcasters to act in the public interest.
theodoric | 10.17.04 - 4:43 pm | #

Like I've said before, that's why BartCop.com calls that rag the New York Whore.
Terry C | 10.17.04 - 7:23 pm | #

"what's the point of making an endorsement which reads as if it were written in crayon?"

Everything in this country seems to be "dumbed down" anymore.
Terry C | 10.17.04 - 7:25 pm | #

"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"

Fuck you - if anyone is an asshole, it's you!

If you were around during Viet Nam, you probably thought those of us who protested that mess was a "fucking coward", too!

FYI: Bush isn't getting either one of MY kids, either. If you're so much for this war, YOU go and enlist.

Dickhead!
Terry C | 10.17.04 - 7:29 pm | #

"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 "

Religion doesn't belong in politics, okay?

Bush never goes to church but he's always trying to shove his religious shit down everyone else's throats. John Kerry goes to Mass, and he thinks his religion is HIS business.

Besides, the Catholic Church has NO moral authority to tell ANYONE how to vote. These are the people who covered for pedophiles for years and have NO respect whatsoever for women!
Terry C | 10.17.04 - 7:32 pm | #

""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."

A great many of us DON'T believe those "core tenents" so why should we allow them to be forced upon us?

Most Catholics don't even buy the BS that the Catholic hierarchy tries to feed them.
Terry C | 10.17.04 - 7:54 pm | #

Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan