Politics 2004/10

2004-10-25

The New Yorker: The Choice

What a scathing, beautiful indictment of this administration. The New Yorker, hardly what anybody would pick as a liberal / progrressive mouthpiece, shreds Bush's presidency in no uncertain words, endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in 80 years:

The Bush Administration has had success in carrying out its policies and implementing its intentions, aided by majorities—political and, apparently, ideological—in both Houses of Congress. Substantively, however, its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and — strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism — incompetence.

And on Kerry:

But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery.

posted at 16:22:24    #    comment []    trackback []
 
2004-10-22

Top 35 Trends that say Kerry will Take the White House in November

An interesting and hopeful analysis.

posted at 11:36:32    #    comment []    trackback []
 
2004-10-17

Really Scary: Bush-as-Messiah

Ron Suskind's NYT analysis of the "certainty-at-any-cost" nature of the current presidential culture is chilling.

posted at 17:09:20    #    comment []    trackback []
 
2004-10-15

The Lone Star ICONOCLAST endorses Kerry

Bush's hometown paper, who endorsed him in 2000, is endorsing Kerry:

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

posted at 12:12:48    #    comment []    trackback []
 
2004-10-08

LA Times: "Is He a Dope?" (via blog.johnkerry.com)

About whom does the op-ed writer ask these questions, do you think?

Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?

posted at 12:12:48    #    comment []    trackback []
October 2004
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Sep
2004
 Nov
2004

Category "politics"

XML-Image Letterimage

© 2004, Tres Seaver