The New Yorker endorsement of President Obama

[BigAppleBucky]

A long thoughtful piece. It’s been out for several days, but is worth a reading.

The Choice

Speaking of the president:

Obama was determined to bring together warring tribes in Washington and beyond. He extended his hand to everyone from the increasingly radical leadership of the congressional Republicans to the ruling mullahs of the Iranian theocracy. The Republicans, however, showed no greater interest in working with Obama than did the ayatollahs. The Iranian regime went on enriching uranium and crushing its opposition, and the Republicans, led by Dickensian scolds, including the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, committed themselves to a single goal: to engineer the President’s political destruction by defeating his major initiatives. Obama, for his part, did not always prove particularly adept at, or engaged by, the arts of retail persuasion, and his dream of bipartisanship collided with the reality of obstructionism.

And speaking of the challenger:

But holding foreign bank accounts is not a substitute for experience in foreign policy. In that area, he has outsourced his views to mediocre, ideologically driven advisers like Dan Senor and John Bolton. He speaks in Cold War jingoism. On a brief foray abroad this summer, he managed, in rapid order, to insult the British, to pander crudely to Benjamin Netanyahu in order to win the votes and contributions of his conservative Jewish and Evangelical supporters, and to dodge ordinary questions from the press in Poland. On the thorniest of foreign-policy problems—from Pakistan to Syria—his campaign has offered no alternatives except a set of tough-guy slogans and an oft-repeated faith in “American exceptionalism.”

And conclusion:

The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

[Chronos]

It took them this long to endorse him? I thought the New Yorker had already endorsed the Democrat in the 2028 election.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

If you ever doubt Joe Scarborough’s street cred as a tea party-watercarrier, see his interview with NYer editor re: this editorial, in which he attacks this man’s defense of the editorial with startling viciousness and contempt. I’ll see if it’s on You Tube.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Link

[Bricker]

@BigAppleBucky

A long thoughtful piece. It’s been out for several days, but is worth a reading.

The Choice | The New Yorker

Speaking of the president:
And speaking of the challenger:
And conclusion:

Interestingly, the New Yorker’s long and thoughtful endorsements have always been the Democrat.

What are the odds?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Bricker

Interestingly, the New Yorker’s long and thoughtful endorsements have always been the Democrat.

What are the odds?

The odds against the GOP putting up a thoughtful, intelligent, consistent candidate who doesn’t pander to right wing lunatics?

Pretty steep, I’d say.

[Randvek]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

The odds against the GOP putting up a thoughtful, intelligent, consistent candidate who doesn’t pander to right wing lunatics?

Pretty steep, I’d say.

Maybe in 2028.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

If you ever doubt Joe Scarborough’s street cred as a tea party-watercarrier, see his interview with NYer editor re: this editorial, in which he attacks this man’s defense of the editorial with startling viciousness and contempt. I’ll see if it’s on You Tube.

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Link

David Remnick comes across as a thoughtful, informed person.

Joe Scarborough comes across as a douchebag spoiling for a fight.

[Grumman]

Some, quite reasonably, are disappointed in his policy failures (on Guantánamo, climate change, and gun control); others question the morality of the persistent use of predator drones. And, of course, 2012 offers nothing like the ecstasy of taking part in a historical advance: the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter.

Oh really? How the fuck is protecting torturers, prosecuting whistleblowers and fighting to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial “progressive” or “decent”? These are not policy failures, these are deliberate betrayals of what should be fundamental principles.

[Gyrate]

I’m not overly surprised by the New York Times endorsement of Obama.

I was surprised, however, by the Salt Lake Tribune endorsement of Obama. Are they a leftie paper?

[BrainGlutton]

@Gyrate

I’m not overly surprised by the New York Times endorsement of Obama.

No, this is The New Yorker. Magazine, not newspaper.

@Gyrate

I was surprised, however, by the Salt Lake Tribune endorsement of Obama. Are they a leftie paper?

I don’t think so, but they endorsed Obama in 2008.

[Gyrate]

@BrainGlutton

No, this is The New Yorker. Magazine, not newspaper.

Oops. Even less surprised, though.

I don’t think so, but they endorsed Obama in 2008.

Interesting.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

Interestingly, the New Yorker’s long and thoughtful endorsements have always been the Democrat.

What are the odds?

What is your point, precisely? Are you responding to the claim someone made that the New Yorker was a politically centrist magazine and that the fact that they chose to endorse Obama is evidence that Obama appeals to independent voters?

Because you’re right, that is a somewhat relevant response… to a claim that no one in this thread made.
If one of your favorite conservative thinkers writes a piece endorsing Romney that lays out the pro-Romney argument in what you think is a particularly succinct and elegant way, it’s entirely reasonable for you to link to that article and endorse its contents, and if you do, someone pointing out (the non-secret) that that’s a conservative thinker who presumably usually endorses the Republican is in no way relevant to the point you were attempting to convey.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Grumman

Oh really? How the fuck is protecting torturers, prosecuting whistleblowers and fighting to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial “progressive” or “decent”? These are not policy failures, these are deliberate betrayals of what should be fundamental principles.

This is just the break the Nader campaign has been waiting for!

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

If one of your favorite conservative thinkers writes a piece endorsing Romney that lays out the pro-Romney argument in what you think is a particularly succinct and elegant way, it’s entirely reasonable for you to link to that article and endorse its contents, and if you do, someone pointing out (the non-secret) that that’s a conservative thinker who presumably usually endorses the Republican is in no way relevant to the point you were attempting to convey.

When do I ever do that?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

When do I ever do that?

Maybe instead of saying, “What are the odds?” you could explain why your comment is relevant. Because I can’t come up with any way your comment is actually contributing to the discussion. Nobody here is expressing surprise that the New Yorker endorsed Obama. The news isn’t that they did so. The point is that it’s a (what word appeared in the OP?) thoughtful endorsement.

In other words, rather than discuss the fact of the endorsement, this is a thread to discuss the content, and merit, of the endorsement.

Edit: and because Bricker is certain to ask whether I’m being fair, I think it’d be better if everyone were talking about its content instead of horse-racing it.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Maybe instead of saying, “What are the odds?” you could explain why your comment is relevant. Because I can’t come up with any way your comment is actually contributing to the discussion. Nobody here is expressing surprise that the New Yorker endorsed Obama. The news isn’t that they did so. The point is that it’s a (what word appeared in the OP?) thoughtful endorsement.

In other words, rather than discuss the fact of the endorsement, this is a thread to discuss the content, and merit, of the endorsement.

Edit: and because Bricker is certain to ask whether I’m being fair, I think it’d be better if everyone were talking about its content instead of horse-racing it.

In your view, which of the posts thus far discusses “…the content, and merit, of the endorsement?”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

In your view, which of the posts thus far discusses “…the content, and merit, of the endorsement?”

The OP. If your defense is, “but they started it!” you’re gonna make me go all third-grade-teacher on you.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The OP. If your defense is, “but they started it!” you’re gonna make me go all third-grade-teacher on you.

Not really. OP quotes three passages, but apart from a general laudatory comment, does not discuss the merits in any kind of detail. The OP’s contribution boils down to, “I like what this guy says.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Not really. OP quotes three passages, but apart from a general laudatory comment, does not discuss the merits in any kind of detail. The OP’s contribution boils down to, “I like what this guy says.”

Do you disagree with specific parts of the endorsement? If so, which parts?