The New Yorker’s Editors Make the Case

Sometimes I indulge in snark. Sometimes I go too far in an emotional moment. But sometimes — when I’m at my most reasoned and rational — I actually try to speak the truth as best I can discern it, divorced from my preconceptions.

At my best, I fall short of the standard achieved here, by the editors of The New Yorker, in their endorsement of John Kerry: The choice.

This essay contains truth in roughly the same density that a neutron star contains matter. The cases against Bush, and for Kerry, are laid out clearly, concisely, and with a shockingly nonpartisan honesty.

I still have my uncertainties about what will happen next Tuesday (or, God forbid, thereafter) to determine the next president of this country. But on one point, at least, I can put my fears to rest: I know that the case has been made, irrefutably, for anyone with eyes to see.

8 Responses to “The New Yorker’s Editors Make the Case”

  1. Tom Buckner Says:

    So what you’re saying is that the editors of the New York Times, the head writers of the most prestigious news paper in the United States, are showing evidence that they know how to do their jobs.

    Halleluia. Bout tim,e.

    Now will they burn Judith Miller in a public auto-da-fe? Please?

  2. Tom Buckner Says:

    Oh, my dumbass mistake. The New Yorker.

    I saw that yesterday, but it’s longer than their normal opening shot and I had little time to read it. The New Yorker has been a consistent voice of reason and no friend of the Bushists.

  3. Craig Says:

    Three-fourths of the article is Bush-bashing, then a few last-minute references to the idea that Kerry seems to be a nicer fellow, and some embarassingly small references to what should be a more impressive body of work in the senate, given the amount of years spent there.

    That is the justification for Kerry’s qualifications for being a better President?

    And where is the “shockingly” nonpartisan honesty in this list of talking points from the DNC, er, I mean, the NYT? His vote of “no” regarding the first Gulf War? (his only significant mistake apparently) A reference to an “uneven” performance while on the campaign trail? (wow, a candidate that could have said something better once or twice among hundreds of speeches? that’s an amazing admission)

    Don’t sell yourself short John, i think even you could have presented a better case for why Kerry should be President, rather than NYT’s justification for why Bush shouldn’t be President!

    The NYT has sold its soul long ago to promote a particular political agenda, thus forfeiting its claim of “the paper of record” and all that that should mean.

  4. Craig Says:

    It’s contagious Tom! I was thinking NYT too!! (it’s exactly what I would expect them to write)

    My last sentence in the post above is still true. Just not relevant to the article John posted. Sorry.

  5. Aaron Says:

    Everybody has knee-jerk reactions at times. At least you guys are sufficiently principled to recognize and apologize when you find that your knee has jerked you in a very wrong direction….

  6. Tony D Says:

    The big irony here is that nobody is making a great case FOR either candidate but when making a case against either, Bush is definitely the easiest target. From what I’ve been able to garner cases against Bush can be done effectively while sticking close to the facts. In contrast cases made against Kerry seem to rely heavily on spin and misrepresentation of his record. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us which man will be the best for leading towards an acceptable conclusion of the Iraq conflict but the evidence is overwhelming that Bush will continue to maintain a stable of like minded ideologues to advise his policy while Kerry is much more likely to consider a broader range of perspectives. In the end I’ve decided that Kerry is the one possessing the intellectual curiosity to seek out the best course.

  7. Adam Says:

    On the one hand, I think this piece was brilliant, and I agree about its density. But on the other hand, I’m sad that it even had to be written at all. Whenever I hear Bush apologists, I get the clear feeling of “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

  8. Craig Says:

    This endorsement seems to me to be typical of the way Democrats in general view the two candidates. More energy and passion are devoted to why Bush shouldn’t be in office, than on how Kerry has all the best qualifications and ideas to best lead the country. It feels like the core rationale is that “it isn’t Bush”, and anything Kerry intends to do if elected is nearly inconsequencial.

    How many Kerry supporters can actually present a well-reasoned yet passionate argument for Kerry without, at some point, reflexively digressing into a rant on Bush’s demagoguery and facsist designs on the Country?

    Do such supporters really, in their heart of hearts, truly believe in Kerry’s ability to lead the Country on the right course, as opposed to him just not being Bush?

    I really wonder.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.