My Photo

seeing

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from mari-posa. Make your own badge here.

MetaRefs

« A Vote For Kerry Can Save Our Country ~AND Your Relationship! | Main | What Would a Dumbass Republican Do? »

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

For any reader of another country other than the USA and of readers of the USA. I did not, I repeat DID NOT vote for Bush. I voted for John Kerry who I believe would have been an outstanding president of the U.S. who would have been a man who could have brought not only our country together but also bring back the trust of other countries again. To work together as a country as well as with other countries. Bush is a disgrace to American and I know in my gut that there were groups that across the country, they did some things to get certain groups of people to not get to the polls. Also, possibly using 'scare tactics' to get certain people not go to the polls to cast their vote.

I wrote this in another place I frequent, and thought you might want to see it when you menitioned that Kerry got so many newspaper endorsements.

On Sunday the Chi. Tribune endorsed Bush for a second term, and the NY Times Endorsed Kerry. I read both, and was quite disappointed with the offering from the Times. Their editorial runs about 25 paragraphs, and of those 25, they use 23 to complain about President Bush, and the remainder to give a lukewarm tip of the hat to Senator Kerry. While criticism of Bush is certainly expected in an endorsement for change, how could the most popular and influential newspaper in the country provide such tepid support for their guy?

In anticipation of the obvious retort (Why Kerry?) the Times tries to go all spiritual by saying that voting for a candidate is a “leap of faith.” Eight months of Bush-bashing ain’t really a reason to vote for a guy. What a cop out!

The Tribune, on the other hand spent most of it's editorial outlining the reasons why they support their decision, and even turned a critical eye toward Bush and his policies. Yes, I agree with the Trib, but on the issue of whether either paper even tried to lay out a case to attract support FOR their candidate, the Tribune did, and the Times did not. Read for yourself.

There are times when the media intend to have opinions, and this is one of those times. My comments really say more for the lack of reasons to suppport Kerry than they say about the fact that newspapers offer opinions.

You would think that if the most influential newspaper in the country was going to make an endorsement, they might at least put up a bit of capitol to underscore their opinion. Well, I would think that. This leads me to think that they are only falling in line with the "Anybody But Bush" mentality. That is what is pathetic.

NYT endorsement & Chicago Tribune Endorsment below it:
http://groups.msn.com/thecairojournal/election2004.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1532&LastModified=4675494302493366460

hey, if all the cool people leave the country, can i bring my friends too? Given the accelerated pace of global warming, we can pick a place a bit upland, since it'll be beachfront in a decade or so.

Pa'lante

I don't know. I just know I'm very sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Sensory Overload