« Flaming Voodoo Time! | Main | 3-0 »

NYT Channels DU

The New York Times endorses John Kerry for President. Wait, that's not right. The New York Times does not endorse George Bush for President. 23 paragraphs in the NYT endorsement. Only three of those paragraphs detail why the NYT supports Kerry. The rest is an anti-Bush manifesto worthy of Democratic Underground. Even our nation's vaunted media can't come up with enough cogent reasons to vote for Kerry other than he's not George Bush. I predict that if Kerry does win, there will be a very short honeymoon period in which his presidency is celebrated. Eventually the reality will set in for the millions that voted on the "he's not Bush" agenda. Kerry will end up with the lowest approval rating of any president in recent history. The morale of our nation will go into its own little recession. Just my little prediction for the day.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NYT Channels DU:

» Flabbergasted!! from Overtaken by Events
Inexplicably, I awoke this morning to find that the New York Times and the Boston Globe had endorsed John Kerry... [Read More]

» Flabbergasted!! from Overtaken by Events
Inexplicably, I awoke this morning to find that the New York Times and the Boston Globe had endorsed John Kerry... [Read More]

» I was so surprised, you could have knocked me ove from The Unabrewer
The New York Times has endorsed John Kerry. In unrelated but equally obvious news, Frank Sinatra got a lot of tail. [Read More]

» The Suspense Was Killing Us from Wizbang
Shockingly Opinion > John Kerry for President" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?ex=1255665600&en=4273d1a9760f9069&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland">The New York Times endorses John Kerry for President If you read the whole column ... [Read More]

» New York Times Endorses Kerry from Sortapundit
I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Who could have expected that the New York Times would back Kerry? Michele notes that of 23 paragraphs in the piece, only 3 focus on why Kerry is good, the other 20 read like an anti-Bush manifesto. [Read More]

» The Times' Endorsement of Kerry from Late Final
The New York Times endorsed John Kerry for president today and, in doing, mislead its readers about some pretty important issues. In particular: Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy.... [Read More]

» The NYT Endorses Anyone but Bush for Prez from Pavel Bloviates
The paper instead does what any lib MSM outlet (hell, any Kerry supporter at all) does: chant again The Litany of Why Bush is Evil. 23 paragraphs devoted to The Litany; 3 paragraphs regarding why Kerry fails to suck. If a President could run a c... [Read More]

» In other breaking news, sun rises in east from Wizbang
The New York Times, to the breathless anticipation of the nation, announced it's presidential endorsement today. I think. I've just read and re-read the entire editorial, and I'm still confused. The Times editors spent 22 paragraphs on explaining their... [Read More]

» President Bush is Leading in Gallup Poll from Our Life
Gallup is currently showing President Bush with an eight point lead over Senator Kerry. President George W. Bush: 52% Senator John F. Kerry: 44% Ralph Nader: 1% Even though the New York Times is endorsing Senator Kerry (big suprise) the... [Read More]

» NYT for ABB, not necessarily JFK from Signifying Nothing
The New York Times endorses John Kerry Anybody But Bush. I think Michele’s reaction pretty much mirrors my own: Even our nation’s vaunted media can’t come up with enough cogent reasons to vote for Kerry other than he’s not George... [Read More]

» Prediction from Cold Fury
MIchele's got it right, I think: [Read More]

» The One Where Les Posts a Bunch of Links from Les Jones Blog
This could be a major blow to global warming theory. The computer model that generated the classic hockey stick graph showing drastic temperature increases appears to be flawed. Plugging random data into the program produces the same hockeystick graph.... [Read More]


Corallary to your prediction - and they will be shocked, SHOCKED, that things turned so crappy. A scape goat will be found...and it probably won't be J effin K. For a lot of them, at any rate.

The thought of looking in the mirror won't be considered, either.

Couldn't agree with you more!

The number of parallels between Kerry and Jimmy Carter are mind-numbing. It really wouldn't be shocking if Kerry won, and then offered a "malaise" speech within his first hundred days, telling us how every problem in the world is our fault.

The real scary part of that is Kerry's fixation on Vietnam. In your scenario he takes on the roll of Johnson and doesn't run again, defeated by the great white whale that helped launch his career. Wow, a little Melville, a little Shakespearean bent - Hillary gets her wish and plays RFK, gets felled by a foreign national (terrorist), peacenik Dean does a McCarthy but Lieberman as Humphrey steps in and wins the nomination and, since the Hatch Amendment passes, a "Nixon inspired" Caleefornian named Schwartzeneger wins the Presidency. Whew!

That's far too much excitement for me - let's just hope Bush wins.

They way I figure it, if Kerry wins or Bush wins, the eventual outcome is the same. If Kerry wins, we get attacked by terrorists because Kerry wanted to serve them subpoenas. Post attack, the country turns on Kerry who managed to get us attacked when Bush didn't. In 2008, Condi Rice and Rudy Gulliani begin what will turn out to be a sixteen year campaign.

Just a thought.

And it will be Bush's Fault.

Sissy got it right. Kerry will blame everything on Bush or the "partisan" Republican Congress. He will ride that horse as long as he can. The people that voted for Kerry as the "anti-Bush" will be able to rationalize away any misgivings toward Kerry.

After about 3 years, Hillary will suddenly start criticizing him and announce her run for President. The lemmings will flock to her and she will lead them over the cliff.

With a Kerry win the desperately needed spanking and reformation of the Dem Party will be postponed. Indeed, the hard Leftists of the Party, who have already signaled their readiness to completely take it over, will be emboldened. They will pressure an already leftist MA aristocrat who has never had to worry about the electric bill or taxes or getting another year out of the old car, to shove this country into the EU model -- militarily emasculated, blind to any 'human rights abuses' that do NOT take place in Israel or America, speech codes like Canada (for your own good of course, must eliminate HATE.. HATE is not protected by the 1st amendment and WE will decide what HATE is) ... 'free' health care, 'free' education, just turn over 80% of your money, all of your guns, and only read what we approve of (get ready for Kerry to pay back the help of the MSM by trying to figure out how to crack down on the hatefilled rumormongering pajama-clad internet).

And when a terrorist blows up the Golden Gate Bridge?

Bush's fault.

Oh... BTW... the desperation and craveness of the Left and Camp Kerry can be seen with their continued flogging of the GW win=draft lie.

Infact, Kerry is the only one that has seriously proposed a "mandatory national service" plan (draft) ... plus, with a Kerry win a draft would be more likely because the majority of the military hates his guts and will not re-enlist.

I think you're completely correct, Michele.

How's this for dark optimism: If Kerry wins, and we are attacked on his watch, the Democrats get the message - that it's not about what we do, it's about who we are. The country unites against terrorists and their supporters. We abandon our internal bickering for the duration of the conflict. We develop concrete steps we all can take to support the fight in our daily lives.

We all - finally! - take the fight seriously and an electoral defeat gives rise to a belated, and far too bloody, national victory.

This part I know - when America takes a fight seriously, America wins. The part I don't know is how to get a significant majority of America to take it seriously.

You are very, very brave to have read the thing that carefully.

Voting for Kerry because Bush is a disaster is plenty of reason to vote for Kerry. John Kerry can't possibly be worse and most likely will be much better.

ug writes "John Kerry can't possibly be worse"

Someone hasn't been paying attention.

Any attack before 2007 under a Kerry administration will be spun as Bush's fault.

Any attack in 2007 or 2008, which could produce plummting poll numbers and a primary challenge to Kerry's re-election would probably produce a far stronger response from his administration. No consolation for the dead in the attack, of course, but Kerry's ability to say whatever he thinks needs to be said during the current campaign to get elected would probably morph into doing whatever he thinks needs to be done to stay in office four years later, even if that meant angering his furthest left supporters.

It's also worth noting that the fear that Kerry would act only after the fact seems to be the reason why the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush today as the Times was going for Kerry. However, since the Trib has kept basically a hands-off editorial policy towards its subsidiary holdings in recent years, don't expect the Los Angeles Times or Long Island Newsday to follow suit.

That's a heck of a three paragraphs about Kerry. It's not like they said "He's all right, we guess."

Is the morale in our nation that high as it is? Is Bush's approval rating terribly high at the moment?

Or is it DU/moonbat lies that are keeping Bush from his rightful level of popularity?

If he happens to be elected, John Kerry will then be evaluated by the American people upon what he does, or fails to do, just like George Bush is finally being evaluated now.

By all the evidence, a majority of the American public is extremely perturbed by what George has done and has failed to do. I certainly am. Moreover, I think if you would actually allow yourself to think about it, you would be, too.

When a sitting president, less than three weeks from re-election, is consistently polling 48% or less, his campaign is in massive trouble. And it is in massive trouble because of what he has done or failed to do, not because of anything his challenger, the press, or the opposite party has done. George will stand or fall by his record, period.

Any challenger to an office is a gamble to elect. Any of them. And the non-partisan among us will be in some doubt of them, all the way to the voting booth. For the challenger has never had a chance to seriously lead a nation. It is clearly of another order than anything else in our politics and nothing truly prepares you for it.

Nobody gets a chance to be truly "presidential" until they are President. If you had put George Bush to the same test in 2000 as you now wish to put John Kerry in 2004, all you could have reasonably said was that George had refused to commute more death sentences than anybody else in America. And this made him fit for higher office?

If George Bush loses, it will be for exactly the reason I think he should lose: most of what he has actually done has been an inane,incoherent, and destructive failure, and what he hasn't done has been even worse.

I defy you to put into clear unambigous sentences, supported by the facts, any serious refutation to the statement immediately above.

Nothing is more striking about virtually all the blogs on the Right than how little they really have to talk about besides the Swift Boat nonsense and the tar-and-feathering of Dan Rather. How little, ultimately, they have to say about the virtues of government by George W. Bush, or his accomplishments in office.

So what do you have to say about it?

And when a terrorist blows up the Golden Gate Bridge? Bush's fault.

Unfortunately, the "Golden Gate Commission" would probably find that the Bush administration was partially responsible for allowing the terrorists to enter the U.S.

From Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report:
...once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack. Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity...

Now, go read one of the many articles I could provide that discuss how the administration is not working hard enough to prevent future abuses, such as "D.C. hamstrings border officers".

I'm sorry, Joseph. Your statement, "most of what he has actually done has been an inane,incoherent, and destructive failure, and what he hasn't done has been even worse." is neither clear nor unambiguous. Therefore, a clear and unambiguous refutation is not possible.

Please cite 3 specific things Bush has done which fit your thesis, and three which he has not done. Thus shall discussion commence.

If GW looses, it will be Clinton's fault.

Sure, here's three things he did:

1. Invading Iraq with absolutely no preparation whatever for the "catastrophic success" of actually winning the "official" war in such a short time. If you'd like the details, there's a fine Knight Ridder article on it which I just posted on my own blog.

2. Insisting on fighting both of the two "major wars" which the United States military was designed to wage, AND rebuilding Iraq, by running up massive and overwhelming budget deficts without regard to fiscal sanity or common sense.

3. Single-handedly creating the Iraqi insurgency by disbanding Saddam's army and dumping that pool of military training back tracelessly into the Iraqi civilian population. AND single-handedly arming that same insurgency by not securing from looting Saddam's vast supplies of small arms.

There's plenty of other foul-ups of commission but these three will do for starters--they are pretty unequivocal.

Now as to three items of omission:

1. Failure to sensibly evaluate the actual level of threat from Saddam's Iraq in comparison to the KNOWN potential of Iran to generate nuclear weapons.

Some call this an "intelligence failure", but it was a failure of common sense. The absolute most Iraq could possibly have had were leftover chemical shells and some component parts of a nuclear program. And the evidence that they had ANYTHING was decidedly shaky from the first. Iran was KNOWN to have, and still has, nuclear reactors, expertise, and fuel. The choice between them as to threat level was a no-brainer.

2. Failure to keep enough military force in reserve to deal with the clearly intensified Iranian drive to go nuclear which was much more likely after Afghanistan, and perfectly forseeable from the day Iraq fell.

This has two parts: We abandoned staging bases in Saudi on the presumption we could replace them in a quickly stablized Iraq.

Well, surprise, we still haven't stabilized it and we don't have those forward bases to use against Iran. And we don't have the troops either, because they are still trying to stablize Iraq.

In addition, by fighting two major wars far too close together, all but one of our 10 aircraft carriers were off the high seas for more than a year.

So even if we had built those Iraqi forward bases, the major portion of our close air support for troops was simply not available for 12 crucial months while the Iranians have been busy as beavers.

2. Other than shaking down more airline passengers and sounding color coded alerts, virtually nothing has been done to fix massive security gaps in the United States.

We have probably made it too hard to try to fly airplanes into buildings. But we certainly have not made it too hard to smuggle a clandestine nuclear weapon in by sea, steal fissionable material from our own nuclear facilities, blow up a chemical plant in a major city and kill thousands, or even to make large quantities of explosive or nerve gas out of commonly available commerical products. Not to mention the fact that our borders remain a sieve.

And, by the way, merely chasing after "terrorists" abroad doesn't count. Why? Because all Iran has to do is go nuclear and every Islamic terrorist on the planet will have an untouchable refuge, just like Afghanistan was, only worse.

3. George has failed to even articulate a sensible response, let alone actually implement one, to the slowly deteriorating quality of American life and the American future over these past four years: job creation that cannot even keep up with new entrants to the job market; totally flattened or falling income levels among ordinary people; uncontrolled illegal immigration; millions more without health insurance; balooning costs and deteriorating quality of health insurance coverage for EVEN the people who have it; rising numbers of people in poverty; rising fuel costs for both driving and, soon, heating; rising levels of consumer debt used to finance the "recovery" for the investor class alone; and the Social Security problem (which was just starting to get solved with those long ago budget surplusses).

I don't mean that George didn't SOLVE any of this. I mean he hasn't even tried to address it, or anything else of significance in this world EXCEPT the situation in Iraq.

And, no, his unfunded "no child left behind" fan dance and his so-called Medicare Rx Drug Plan (coupled with a lovely increase in overall premiums of 17%!!!) are NOT an adequate address of it.

If he happens to be re-elected, I frankly don't expect him to address it in the future.

There you go David: three and three, commission and omission.

Not to mention the fact that if George had actually done ANYTHING which has unequivocally worked, twenty people, Michele included, would have beaten me over the head with it by now.

3. Single-handedly creating the Iraqi insurgency by disbanding Saddam's army and dumping that pool of military training back tracelessly into the Iraqi civilian population. AND single-handedly arming that same insurgency by not securing from looting Saddam's vast supplies of small arms.

That's a good one: It's Bush's fault that we went to war with a dictator and didn't lovingly preserve his army. Because war is all about not killing the enemy, right? I think Patton said that.

And when you conquer a country in three weeks, you have full physical control of every molecule in that nation's hundreds of thousands of square miles. It's absolutely possible to prevent thirty million people from manipulating small metal objects.

Joseph, are you for real? I mean seriously: Are you for fucking real?

Glad to see your back in the game. As an ardent waterfowler I strongly support Ducks Unlimited DU. That is the only DU, could you find another acromysim for the dim undergroud. Pretty Please. Am voting for W, prediction it won't be close and it won't be Kerry. PS the BoSox are overrated, Card Yanks should be a good series, will listen to it in my tree stand (bow hunitng)

That's a good one: It's Bush's fault that we went to war with a dictator and didn't lovingly preserve his army.

From this: As American forces advanced, regular Iraqi soldiers abandoned their arms and ran away in droves. Yet in one of his first orders as the American overseer of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer disbanded the entire Iraqi army. Bremer's order deprived U.S. commanders of men they'd planned to recall to help keep order and secure Iraq's borders. It compounded the problems created by the Bush administration's failure to plan for securing Iraq and its mistaken estimate of how many American troops it would take to do that. It threw legions of angry, defeated Iraqis out of work, handed the budding anti-U.S. insurgency a recruiting windfall and fueled suspicions that America had come not to liberate Iraq, but to seize its oil.

That's funny. Lowest approval rating of any president? Lower than W's? Your hero, W, is at 44% today -- sitting president, in wartime, and he's at 44% -- do you really think Kerry could go much lower than that? C'mon.