A newspaper I read online is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which on Sunday came out with it’s endorsement of John Kerry for president.
For this thread, I propose that we post media endorsements we find that make compelling, well-stated, interesting, or otherwise debateable arguments for one candidate or another. The point is to try to de-personalize the debates as to the merits of presidential candidates; some dopers are not being nice or respectful to each other. We can bash editorial boards instead of each other.
However, let’s assume that editorial endorsements are, generally speaking, reasonable things for the various media to publish or present. Let’s be civil and respectful to each other, or at least pretend to try!
So, let’s share the endorsements and debate them. Are they making good cases for their candidate, which the other side should take seriously? Are they ignoring or downplaying issues which are important to you?
To get us started, I think the PI is a terse, cogent argument which summarizes well what many Kerry supporters believe, and with which I am generally in agreement. However, I think the PI editorial could have been a little more specific about a couple points, for instance what exactly Kerry could bring to the Iraq fiasco which would be successful where Bush ha snot.
One statement I find very compelling:
Italics mine. This is one of the major problems I believe the Bush presidency has, and why it is a failed presidency. Bush seems to have no tolerance for honest discussion, disagreement, or dissent, and frankly the debates quite palpably revealed this. I submit that some of the problems the administration faces are directly the result of this intransigence. Also, Bush has utterly failed to represent the people of this country in a holistic fashion. His policies seem to be based on the assumption that the concerns of people who didn’t vote for him are irrelevant. I agree with the Seattle PI that this sort of thing will probably not exist in a Kerry administraton.
Thoughts?