In an election shocker, today the New York Times endorsed
Barack Obamessiah for President of the United States. I have included the editorial here for your education, but I would not be surprised if Rethuglican operatives hacked this site for their own purposes:
Barack Obama for President
Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.
The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars (started by Islamic fanatics
), a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens (by an obstructionist Democratic majority
) — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters (on buses flooded by Central Planner Democrat Ray Nagin
), searching for affordable health care (paid for by someone else
) or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable (by responsible Republicans
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the
choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment (such as when he told Russia to play nice with Georgia in the "sand box" - apparently decisive and moral declarations are above his "pay grade"
). We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics (the political center
), running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.
Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities (and it includes government acquisition of said Wall Street and your bank accounts - they will manage both for you
In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”
Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse (with remarkable clarity of 20/20 hindsight and second-guessing
The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies (in which more people climbed out of poverty than any other time in history
). Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution” — is still a believer.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business (such as government ownership of all homes - no need to mess with mortgages. The utopia of public housing will now be available to all
Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem (which sounds like a good start!
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more (until there is no more and everyone is suffering equally
). Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish (through intimidation tactics
) and expand educational opportunities (with further tax credit subsidies for bloated academia economic model
Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole (as his Democratic congressional majority finds new ways to play Santa Claus with declining tax revenues
The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible (by running from regional tyrants and terrorists
While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan (other than total victory
) for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq (when it meant zero risk to his political career
), and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces (aka as Total Defeat and Surrendertm
). Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow (which President Obama will fix by invading Pakistan
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise (and has the unique distinction of being wrong on every major foreign policy crisis in the last 36 years
) — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible (than being close associates of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc.
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world (by creating an organization centered around the moral principals of democracy vs. and organization that equivocates on the moral standing of nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush (another principled leader
), sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war (because like most leftists, we are testicle/spine-free wonders of nature
). The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives (by total observance of the French surrender model
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening (and effective
The Constitution and the Rule of Law
Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001 (by going after our declared enemies
), the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law (by consulting with congressional leadership on every move and then hypocritically stabbed in the back politically by his Democratic leadership
Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans (those poor browbeaten Congressman - almost as tortured as a GITMO detainees - forced to vote for his ideas at the barrel of a political gun
). He has created untold numbers of “black” programs (would this make him the "Second Black President"?
), including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated (and might even exceed FDR's and LBJ's abuses of power
Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush’s attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.
Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions (which Islamic terrorists scrupulously observe
), greatly increasing the risk to American troops.
The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues (who would interpret the Constitution versus re-writing it
). He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women’s reproductive rights.
It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect (which may happen with the election of a conservative leader in 2012
Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand (but since Ronald Reagan is not available, we should pin our hopes on a Palin adminstration
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance (like modesty and humility
). Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice (spreading the wealth
) and social responsibility (nationalizing morality for your own good
Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries (so he could lose in the general election
), has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.
Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment (by refusing to pander to so-called "independents"
). Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”
Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.
Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.” (just as Joe Biden equated paying more in taxes with being patriotic
This politics of fear, division and character assassination (employed by the Obama campaign against HRC and McCain-Palin
) helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.
The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership (again, Reagan not available
). Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities (in his campaign ads only
The article is one of greatness, when you wear the Party Approved ™ Glasses that cover both eyes with red cellophane plastic.
As you know, the purpose of these glasses, is to remove the words in red, and thus making sure everyone reads the correct version of the article.
When you don't use the Party Approved ™ Glasses, this article has obvious capitalist-pig leanings, and besmirching of the Great One, Obama.
I'm torn between the glorious, beautiful color of RED, and the unapproved messages contained therein.
Stalin for Time
Well let's see. The demorats like Barney Frank caused this crisis and could fix it overnight. Just drop the tax on investments for a 2-year period. But that would cause the economy to get better before the election. Then Obama loses.
So, the demorats do everything they can to keep the economy bad. However, that means throwing their propaganda rag NYT under the bus so Obama can win.
I love it! You can't make this stuff up. The NYT is endorsing the idiots that are making their stock tank even faster than it was before.
I hope it doesn't go belly up.
Why I love the NYT.
1. Makes for weeks of State Approved toilet paper.
2. Bird Cage lining.
3. Rolled up tightly it makes a great blunt object. (for training purposes)
4. Great for tearing up or pouring milk into during magic tricks
6. The best GLBT personals. (I have heard)
7. Only elitist intellectuals like me able to do crossword puzzle
8. Future Obama Ticker tape parade confetti
9. Stock Market Crash news that makes me weep with joy
10. All the GOP bashing news that most publicatons find unfit to print.
11. Paper Hats and Airplanes!
12. A years worth of paper spit wads in one edition.
13. Ink transfers to Silly Putty with ease.
14. Easy start kindling
15. Masterbation on train made easy when opened up to hide your actions from view.
16. The Obama Bible.
If the NYT fails, who will be there to decry the evils of corporate irresponsibility and mismanagement? Who will stand against corporate CEOs who run their own companies into the ground for personal enrichment and agendas? Who will be there to question the waste of stockholder money as they see the value of their investment go in the toilet?
I can think of no company in a better position to understand these issue than NYT. What will we do if they go away?
Unfortunately, I have little hOpe™ that NYT's current death spiral will actually end with its demise. Some other lefty publishing group or multi-billionaire will be there to buy it at a bargain basement price and keep the
bullshit Pravda flowing. Besides, there are all sorts of other media outlets falling over each other to be the official voice of The Party and The One.
Remember Comrades, the PRAVDA MUST FLOW!
Father Prog Theocritus
I weep to think that the Paper of Record may not be the Paper of Record. No matter what happens to the NYT this may be a death blow to its credibility. For the mere appearance of something in the NYT made it exist and made it reputable.
Perhaps we can now use the NYT to bury things which we don't want out.
Father Prog Theocritus
Here in Texas we use the Dallas Morning News, the El Paso Times and The Austin American Statesman as our fishwrap.
Do you think that I should get rid of my cats Calvin and Hobbes so that I could get a bird to use them properly?
Father Prog Theocritus
Ah, yes, Commissar M, the media is poised to prove that all you have to do is lie. This is the ultimate triumph of the Party over truth. Tell a lie and tell it often enough and people will believe it. The Soviets proved this decades ago. Lie, lie, lie, and for good measure lie some more.
Notice that all of this is a flight to authority to avoid the difficulty of thinking. Asking people to think is a vicious thing to do. Much better to ask them to take sides and make one side flashy. Then you get what you want. Notice the contempt.
But thinking is hard and people run screaming from it all the time. And to avoid thinking, or reasoning, they will always take the short-term solution of saying what is expedient, and cool, thereby passing the moral buck.
Father Prog Theocritus
Moral relativism leads to hedonism which leads to the current nihilism. I keep booming that the world is led by people who are only creatures of tastes. Tastes. And nothing more.
Someone whose lodestar is a taste is utterly untrustworthy for he has nothing in his character which you can rely on except his cupidity and self-interest. All human relations are therefore a jungle of seeing what people can be made to do to please themselves.
Therefore everything in life is political. Which is the stated leftist stance.
Father Prog Theocritus
And another thing. My brother said it's not a woman's right to choose. Killing babies is important. I thought him extreme, and he's not an absolute right-to-lifer. But he was right in their aims.
In San Francisco they spent $15M on an animal shelter--each animal having its own room with television. But the police are allowed to use choke holds, which the cops did not use on Rodney King, on abortion-clinic protestors.
In San Francisco they have a zero-kill policy on stray animals and if you adopt one, they'll pay for medical services. Yet it is an intolerable burden on a girl to let her parents know that she's having an abortion. Or that a woman spend the night in a town where she will abort a child. It should, to them, be a transaction like fast food. Get a Big Mac, suck out the kid.
But when a child is wanted, there is endless concern: waiting lists for just the right school, just the right paraphernalia, the child's mental well being, and everything else.
Notice that each of these people is treating the child like a fashion accessory, and the ultimate selfishness of it. Abortion on demand is required because a baby is an obligation.
And I'm not an absolute right-to-lifer either, and wouldn't be all that bothered by abortion up to say three months.
But my stance, which is religiously guided, is one of responsibility to another viable human. A woman who insists on the right to a late-term abortion is hedging her bets: "I may want it, I may not, and I want until 9 months to make up my mind."