New Yorker mag.'s 1st. presidential endorsement - Kerry !

[cruser3]

From the editorial in the N'Yrker !!

Bush had short-changed the American public -- the economy, health care, the environment, social security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism.

"In every crucial area of concern to Americans, Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery," it said.

Quite remarkable !!

[slimdave]

That's a great editorial ... http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_editors

The Financial Times (pink paper, but no bunch of hippies by anyone's standard), also endorsed Kerry ...

Over the past three years, the gap between *****ion and reality has created what could be termed a "Bush bubble". It began after September 11 when the president united a stricken nation behind the struggle against radical Islamist terrorism. Yet success bred excess. Mr Bush launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq on a false prospectus. Few would dispute that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, but the weapons of mass destruction cited as the casus belli appear a figment of the imagination. Mr Bush's vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East is a noble one, but the execution has been execrable. The occupation of Iraq looks like a rallying-point for the Islamic fundamentalists who are the real enemy.

The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism but Mr Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the rest of the world, and a large constituency at home already fearful about the influence of the religious right. The scandal of Abu Ghraib has stained America's reputation for a generation. The administration's disdain for international law has shaken faith in American values. Overall, the US-led war on terror misreads the battle against al-Qaeda as a clash of civilisations rather than a battle within the Muslim world.

...

There are those, particularly in Europe, who would like to turn back the clock to before 9/11. They pine for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Mr Bush recognised the world had changed. But he has taken the US in the wrong direction. As a candidate Mr Kerry often fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the better, safer choice.

[Mr.Hanky]

Hmmmm, Guiliani doesn't seem to think so.

[slimdave]

Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Hmmmm, Guiliani doesn't seem to think so.

Doesn't seem to think what?

[Mr.Hanky]

Originally posted by slimdave
Doesn't seem to think what?

Doesn't seem to think Kerry can lead this country!

[Mr.Hanky]

Then again Kerry does have the Clinton endorsement.

[slimdave]

Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Doesn't seem to think Kerry can lead this country!

Giuliani's has some special insight that the rest of the world doesn't share, then?

[marist89]

My favorite part of this "endorsement":

As a candidate Mr Kerry often fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than loyalty to his own cause.

In other words, "we wouldn't choose him if we had any other choice".

[slimdave]

Originally posted by marist89
My favorite part of this "endorsement":


In other words, "we wouldn't choose him if we had any other choice".

Anyone other than a GOP spin doctor recognizes this for a mark of honesty in the endoresment. This isn't some blindly partisan puff-piece, it's a reasoned and well-thought out critique of the kind that the Bush administration automatically filters out and ignores. They're blind to reality and deaf to every opinion different to their own. It's a sign of their intellectual weakness and moral cowardice.

[gandolf989]

I will take a candidate, like Kerry, who studies the facts and then forms an opinion over, someone like Bush who wants to change the facts to support his own beliefs.