Scott on January 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Like a prophet coming down off the mountain, the New York Times has spoken, sharing their great wisdom with the unwashed masses regarding who we all should vote for in the next presidential election.
Honestly, I don’t know what is more amusing, the fact that the Times thinks anyone really cares what they think -or- the transparently partisan language they use in the process. Compare the language they use to describe the Democratic field (even the ones they didn’t endorse) to the language used to describe the Republican field (even the candidate they disdained the least, leading to a reluctant endorsement).
ABOUT THE FIELD OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES:
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism…They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
About Endorsed Candidate: Hillary Clinton
Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change.
About Barack Obama:
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating…
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change,
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship
About John Edwards:
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory…
ABOUT THE FIELD OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES:
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
About Endorsed Candidate: John McCain
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right…
About Rudolph Giuliani:
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.
About Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.
About Mike Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.
So to be clear…
DEMOCRATS equate to: powerful contenders, brilliant, incandescent, raw populism, promise, equitable taxation, effective government, concern for social issues, restoration of civil liberties, answers for America’s big problems, depth of knowledge, force of intellect, fiery oratory, exhilarating, exciting campaign, change, possibility, leadership, vision, etc…
On the OTHER hand…
REPUBLICANS equate to: strong disagreements, no plan, discredited economics, unwilling, tactical pandering, mistrust, narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive, racial polarization, arrogance, bad judgments, exploitive, shape-shifting, anti-immigrant, etc…
Boy, I sure am glad they cleared that up.
Category: Politics |