New Yorker endorses Kerry - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

New Yorker magazine endorses Kerry
October 26, 2004 - 1:15AM

For the first time in its 80-year history, the venerable New Yorker magazine has endorsed a presidential candidate, urging readers to vote for Democrat John Kerry in next week's election.

"He is plainly the better choice," the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of US President George Bush on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq.

"As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold [Kerry] to the highest standards of honesty and performance," the editorial said. "For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory."

New Yorker editor David Remnick told The Washington Post he had no problem in breaking with tradition to endorse a candidate.

"The magazine's not a museum; it's a living thing that evolves," Remnick said, adding that he and his editors reached a consensus without consulting the magazine's owner, Si Newhouse.

While endorsing Kerry, the magazine devoted the lion's share of its editorial to slamming the Bush Administration's four years in power.

"Its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and - strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism - incompetence," it said.

The commentary portrayed a President living within "a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation" - unable to brook dissent and isolated from genuine debate.

It also laid down a litany of issues on which the magazine said 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.

"Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation."

The magazine's editors were not wholly uncritical of Kerry, acknowledging that he could be "cautious to a fault" and remarking that his failure to aggressively attack Bush's record until late in the campaign had been a missed opportunity.

At the same time, it noted the "physical courage" he displayed during active service in the Vietnam War, and the "moral courage" that led him to denounce the war on his return.

AFP

REF:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...667701577.html

I'll be honest and say I don't know if the New Yorker is considered a liberal or conservative magazine. One would presume that the majority of media in New York would support Bush, due to the 9/11 attacks etc. Maybe I'm wrong in that presumption?

Either way, I just love this quote.

"Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation."

""Its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and - strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism - incompetence," isn't bad either.

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-25-2004, 04:16 PM

Nah, New York City and Republicans typically don't mix very much. There are some very high-profile exceptions (Giuliani) but there is not a chance in hell of Bush taking NY.

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 04:26 PM

OK. I guess I should have thought of that. Isn't north eastern US predominantly Democrat?

Isn't it interesting how things have changed since Lincoln's time?!

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 10-25-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I'll be honest and say I don't know if the New Yorker is considered a liberal or conservative magazine. One would presume that the majority of media in New York would support Bush, due to the 9/11 attacks etc. Maybe I'm wrong in that presumption?

Do you really think 9/11 made leftists think differently? A few, sure, and I'll bet Bush gets a better showing in NY then he did in 2000, but as a whole not really.

daswig · 10-25-2004, 04:31 PM

The New Yorker is a very liberal magazine. No big surprise there....

almostaugust · 10-25-2004, 06:08 PM

The Beastie's dont endorse him, and they are from New York.

So step up to the window and place your bets
Is the US gonna keep breaking necks
Maybe it's time that we impeach Tex
And the military muscle that he wants to flex
By the time Bush is done what will be left
Selling votes like E-pills at the discotheque
Environmental destruction and the national dept
But plenty of dollars left in the fat war chest
What the real deal why you can't connect
Why you hating people that you never met
Didn't your mama teach you to show some respect?
Why not open your mind for a sec?

irateplatypus · 10-25-2004, 09:43 PM

yeah, the new yorker is about as liberal a widely circulated periodical as you're likely to find. the non-political stuff is usually a good read. it's a bit snobbish at times, but overall an interesting and well-written mag.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 03:20 PM

Thanks for educating me.

Mr Mephisto

10-25-2004, 09:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	yeah, the new yorker is about as liberal a widely circulated periodical as you're likely to find. the non-political stuff is usually a good read. it's a bit snobbish at times, but overall an interesting and well-written mag. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-25-2004, 04:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Nah, New York City and Republicans typically don't mix very much. There are some very high-profile exceptions (Giuliani) but there is not a chance in hell of Bush taking NY.

10-25-2004, 04:26 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	OK. I guess I should have thought of that. Isn't north eastern US predominantly Democrat? Isn't it interesting how things have changed since Lincoln's time?! Mr Mephisto

10-25-2004, 04:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	The New Yorker is a very liberal magazine. No big surprise there....

10-25-2004, 06:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	The Beastie's dont endorse him, and they are from New York. So step up to the window and place your bets Is the US gonna keep breaking necks Maybe it's time that we impeach Tex And the military muscle that he wants to flex By the time Bush is done what will be left Selling votes like E-pills at the discotheque Environmental destruction and the national dept But plenty of dollars left in the fat war chest What the real deal why you can't connect Why you hating people that you never met Didn't your mama teach you to show some respect? Why not open your mind for a sec?

10-26-2004, 03:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Thanks for educating me. Mr Mephisto