Results 1 to 5 of 5

Hybrid View

  1. #1 The New Yorker's endorsement of Obama for president... 
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,825
    See Will, this is how real reporters kinda work!!!




    Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:27 AM
    WilliamPitt

    The New Yorker's endorsement of Obama for president...

    ...is an absolute tour de force.

    Best thing I've read so far in the campaign.

    The Choice
    by The Editors October 29, 2012

    (snip)

    Barack Obama began his Presidency devoted to the idea of post-partisanship. His rhetoric, starting with his “Red State, Blue State” Convention speech, in 2004, and his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” was imbued with that idea. Just as in his memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” he had tried to reconcile the disparate pasts of his parents, Obama was determined to bring together warring tribes in Washington and beyond. He extended his hand to everyone from the increasingly radical leadership of the congressional Republicans to the ruling mullahs of the Iranian theocracy. The Republicans, however, showed no greater interest in working with Obama than did the ayatollahs. The Iranian regime went on enriching uranium and crushing its opposition, and the Republicans, led by Dickensian scolds, including the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, committed themselves to a single goal: to engineer the President’s political destruction by defeating his major initiatives. Obama, for his part, did not always prove particularly adept at, or engaged by, the arts of retail persuasion, and his dream of bipartisanship collided with the reality of obstructionism.

    Perhaps inevitably, the President has disappointed some of his most ardent supporters. Part of their disappointment is a reflection of the fantastical expectations that attached to him. Some, quite reasonably, are disappointed in his policy failures (on Guantánamo, climate change, and gun control); others question the morality of the persistent use of predator drones. And, of course, 2012 offers nothing like the ecstasy of taking part in a historical advance: the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds.

    (snip)

    In the service of that ambition, Romney has embraced the values and the priorities of a Republican Party that has grown increasingly reactionary and rigid in its social vision. It is a party dominated by those who despise government and see no value in public efforts aimed at ameliorating the immense and rapidly increasing inequalities in American society. A visitor to the F.D.R. Memorial, in Washington, is confronted by these words from Roosevelt’s second Inaugural Address, etched in stone: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little.” Romney and the leaders of the contemporary G.O.P. would consider this a call to class warfare. Their effort to disenfranchise poor, black, Hispanic, and student voters in many states deepens the impression that Romney’s remarks about the “forty-seven per cent” were a matter not of “inelegant” expression, as he later protested, but of genuine conviction.

    (snip)

    The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

    Read the whole thing: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...o_talk_editors
    It's still a load of Libtard hate and horseshit but at least it's well written, unlike your tripe.
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,173
    How can the New Yorker spew such lies? His attitude from day one was, "I won, you can come along for the ride but you have to sit in the back"
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Dan D. Doty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pevely, Missouri
    Posts
    3,112
    The New Yorker endores Obama ... big surpirse

    Then again, what else can you expect from a bunch self absorbed, self centered jerkazoids who think America stops at the Hudson.
    CU's Paranormal Expert.


    Keep your powder dry, your sword sharp and your wits intact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member FDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,616
    It sounds as though they are as out of touch with reality as Bammy is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,103
    Only dumb libtards read the New Yorker, and other wannabe rich folk for their pretentious charade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •