You are missing my point entirely.
No one (as far as I can tell, please point out where I’m mistaken) seems to be at all surprised that the New Yorker endorsed Obama. Nor is anyone saying “hey, undecided voters… those guys at the New Yorker are noted for the objectivity and brilliance in analysis, and now they’re endorsing Obama. So you should too!”.
Instead, the intent of the OP, as far as I can tell, was to bring up what (s)he viewed as some interesting/well written/though provoking pro-Obama arguments.
Which seems like an utterly reasonable thing to do in the Elections forum, I’d say. And if you’d like to link (presumably in a new thread) to what you view as some well written and convincing pro-Romney arguments, that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do… and I certainly wouldn’t respond by pointing out that the author of those claims was conservative, and thus, I guess, zing?
I take it from this question you are abandoning your contention that OP discusses the merits and content of the endorsement?
That leaves you with a thread in which the OP posts, without meaningful comment or analysis, an endorsement; several other posters chime in with comments that also don’t constitute discussion of the merits or contents, and among those posters, you choose to upbraid me for failing to do so?
OK. Just checking.
My initial comment was intended to suggest that the New Yorker’s endorsement of Obama was never in serious doubt, and a halfway decent writer can easily craft a piece that supports a pre-ordained conclusion.
And it is preordained. The piece, for example, speaks of tempering individualism with a concern for community. Without specifics, of course, it’s difficult to oppose such a sentiment, but the very choice to include it means that the line is intended to signal support for the general way in which Obama and the Democrats “temper individualism.”
I oppose that. I strongly believe that individual achievement, and a government that allows it by creating a broad framework of peaceful coexistence and absence of coercive forces, is the best for the country. I suspect that someone seeking such a framework could truthfully describe it the same way – tempering individualism with a concern for community – but would not choose to do so, because it emphasizes the very quality that should be minimized.
Of course, reasonable people may disagree. Reasonable people may believe in emphasizing community as the path to prosperity and freedom. Clearly the New Yorker is not unreasonable if they share this vision.
But the fact that they, specifically, share this vision is unremarkable. And the fact that people sharing this vision would find themselves in favor of the Democrat over the Republican is likewise unremarkable.
I might, if in fact I’m reading that thread, and not on my iPhone where it’s a pain to type, and not about to go to bed.
Which is to say that doing so is the right thing to do, and I have (on occasion) defended you from similarly overreaching liberal comments. And on far more occasions I have NOT defended you. Because I’m just a guy, I’m not the Official Impartial Dispenser of SDMB Liberal Justice.