The New Yorker- This article has made the best case against Bush

[progressivedancer]

It is a long read, and very wordy- but we are all educated people here, so let us take the time.



This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and as bitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in one direction, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedly independent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray the challenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both the Vietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor. The bitterness has been felt mostly by the challenger’s adherents; yet there has been more than enough to go around. This is one campaign in which no one thinks of having the band strike up “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

The heightened emotions of the race that (with any luck) will end on November 2, 2004, are rooted in the events of three previous Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, more than a hundred and five million Americans went to the polls and, by a small but indisputable plurality, voted to make Al Gore President of the United States. Because of the way the votes were distributed, however, the outcome in the electoral college turned on the outcome in Florida. In that state, George W. Bush held a lead of some five hundred votes, one one-thousandth of Gore’s national margin; irregularities, and there were many, all had the effect of taking votes away from Gore; and the state’s electoral machinery was in the hands of Bush’s brother, who was the governor, and one of Bush’s state campaign co-chairs, who was the Florida secretary of state.

Bush sued to stop any recounting of the votes, and, on Tuesday, December 12th, the United States Supreme Court gave him what he wanted. Bush v. Gore was so shoddily reasoned and transparently partisan that the five justices who endorsed the decision declined to put their names on it, while the four dissenters did not bother to conceal their disgust. There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, in federal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—by cutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery not only of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism.........

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors

[progressivedancer]

1. I forgot

I forgot to mention that this was also the New Yorkers endorsement of John Kerry.

[utopian]

2. Not wordy, lengthy

The New Yorker's Kerry endorsement is one of the best arguments against Bush I've seen. It's clear, concise, detailed, and thorough. The reason it's so long is that Shrub has been incompetent and/or criminal on so many levels. I've been trying to get everyone I know to read it.

[progressivedancer]

3. you're right

but, for a handful of Bush supporters, the reading stops when they encounter the word "apotheosis."

[mrdmk]

4. As I mentioned before

The New Yorker does not make endorsements. This is an unusual election year, but we already knew that.

[teryang]

5. Pretty good stuff but

...the editorial understates the fiscal excesses and takes the idealistic propaganda goals of the neo-con administration at face value.

Neo-cons do not believe in freedom or democracy for foreign nations. Read their Straussian literature, it's okay to lie about these things.
Much of their foreign and military aid goes to support human rights violators, absolutists and dictators.


The deficit is far worse than 400 billion this year, it's two hundred billion more than that. The additional 200 billion was taken from the social security "lockbox" to fund war profiteering crony contractors. (The cumulative deficit will be 14 Trillion by 2014 just about the time the hump of the baby boomers is retiring.)

Despite the profligate spending in "war budgets" we already know our undermanned ground troops weren't properly equipped or outfitted and are dying because of it. See:

http://www.counterpunch.org/

"Mr. Smith Is Dead" Spartacus

How Both Parties Exploit the Defense Budget
By WINSLOW T. WHEELER

[realFedUp]

6. good argument for voting Bush out

Hey, I enjoyed the naked ACT UP activists
Richard Avedon took a photo of also in
that issue.

[progressivedancer]

7. realfedup,

oh boy, naked activist.

[bpilgrim]

8. they think the patriot act has it's good points...

"Some of the reaction to that law has been excessive. Many of its provisions, such as allowing broader information-sharing among investigative agencies, are sensible."

well sure it does... some of the outright abrigation of certain constitution amendments are actually do to expire soon - we'll see - like the FORTH which they deign to touch on but do not explicitly make mention of that fact but don't hesitate to mock some of the 'excessive' CRITISISMS... like 'letting the cops talk to each other', never mind that supposedly was enacted long ago, remember Perl harbor? or the Church hearings, never-mind that i don't hear much ranting about that but i sure do hear a LOT about it's other provisions not to mention 'Patriot' Act II which i believe is still SECRET for christ sakes :crazy:

well my only 'nit' so far... ;->

btw: wasn't there a recent story bout assCrack hounding some libraians :shrug:



peace