It's So Obvious, it Almost Pains Us to Say it

Matt Welch | October 25, 2004

I know I'm supposed to take the election seriously and all, and I actually agree with their bottom line, but this New Yorker endorsement from "The Editors" made me laugh. Their solemn conclusion:

In a time of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatic temperament. In campaigning for America's mainstream restoration, Kerry has insisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of our moment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century. That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice. As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the highest standards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.

In other institutional endorsement news, click here if you care who newspaper editorial boards are backing.

Comments

|10.25.04 @ 3:13PM|#

Newspaper endorsements aren't very influential, of course, but (looking at the bottom link) it is still interesting that many papers have switched from endorsing Bush in 2000.

Jeff Smith|10.25.04 @ 3:21PM|#

What a load of pretentious bulls**t. Just
what one would expect from the source, of
course.

Yawn. I will be so glad when this is over.

Jeff

|10.25.04 @ 3:49PM|#

I actually waded through this drivel earlier today. Isn't it amazing that they spend 80% of their endorsement on the failures of GWB and only two fawning paragraphs on their candidate of choice.

I also like how their interpretation of the events of the Florida recount as one of their justifications of throwing Bush out of office. The SCOTUS decision was written down partisan lines, but their participation would have been avoided if not for the sycophants on the Florida court. AND, so what if Gore got the popular vote - that's not how we elect our Presidents. Will this whining every stop???

Doug Allen|10.25.04 @ 4:05PM|#

I enjoyed the endorsement the Detroit News gave this past weekend: None of the Above.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0410/25/a16-312995.htm

|10.25.04 @ 4:16PM|#

I see that it was posted by J. Would that be the same J who posts comments here at H & R?

But more importantly, who does Reason and Hit & Run endorse? How about both TNR's (National Review and New Republic)?

Matt Welch|10.25.04 @ 4:27PM|#

Fred -- All of our individual endorsements (or at least, lists of who we're voting for), are in that Reason poll story you'll find on the front page somewhere.

|10.25.04 @ 4:27PM|#

Fred,

Nope, it was a different J. Unless it was one of the other J's that posts here much more rarely.
But, since no one asked, I'll state again that I voted (absentee) for Kerry. I hate to call it an endorsement, since I was very close to voting LP or not voting at all.

|10.25.04 @ 4:34PM|#

The 'dogmatism' of Bush vs. Kerry's 'realistic' approach may be the most absurd meme ever to decide an election. This line of reasoning even convinced Dan Drezner to go for Kerry.

Kerry's dogmatism lies in his faith in international institutions, and it is every bit as absurd as the variety exhibited by Bush. His foreign policy proposals are not realistic at all, they are belief in the power of Democrat pixie dust not only to involve other countries, but to make their contributions significant enough to be noticeable after they, mesmerized by Kerry's charm, violate the wills of 98% of their respective populations.

He is no less an ideologue than Bush domestically:

Reimportation of drugs from Canada to reduce costs here - pixie dust.

Government insurance to 'fix' healthcare in the US - pixie dust.

Protecting us by inspecting every single container that crosses into our country - very expensive pixie dust.

I am very concerned that we may be starting down a dangerous path of association:

First we had the notion that regulation of economic affairs is 'progressive', so that if one favored progress, one must surely favor regulation.

The new version appears to be that liberalism is 'realistic', while conservatism is 'dogmatic' or 'evangelical'. I would expect Brad deLong, Matt Yglesias, and commenters like joe to be making that argument. The rest of us should know better.

Morat|10.25.04 @ 4:36PM|#

I actually waded through this drivel earlier today. Isn't it amazing that they spend 80% of their endorsement on the failures of GWB and only two fawning paragraphs on their candidate of choice.

Yeah. You'd think George Bush was an incumbent or something. Stupid fuckers.

|10.25.04 @ 4:59PM|#

This election has never and will never be about John Kerry. It is a referendum on Bush. Kerry is a moderately interested bystander.

|10.25.04 @ 5:25PM|#

"This election has never and will never be about John Kerry. It is a referendum on Bush. Kerry is a moderately interested bystander."

Sorry, multiple Steves.

Each individual voter determines what the election is "about" for himself or herself based on his or her own priorities.

|10.25.04 @ 5:35PM|#

How come the Detroit News doesn't have the balls to do ahead and endorse the LP? Ok, people keep reminding me of all the kooks in the LP, etc, etc, but if you really are concerned about fiscal responsibility and liberty, what's wrong with the LP? I just don't get it.

|10.25.04 @ 6:27PM|#

So if we reverse engineer what "the urgent issues of our moment" (note that phrase-- OUR moment) are from Kerry's campaign, what do we get?

1) I served in Vietnam
2) The draft!
3) They're stopping blacks from voting

From this I expect to see him run in the last week on:

4) Four dead in Ohio
5) Don't bogart that joint, man
6) You know what it says if you play "Revolution No. 9" backwards?

|10.26.04 @ 12:36AM|#

I groove to Mike G.s flash-back! Don't forget free love, that was a winner too. It's a perfect comparison, because we may yet get the same results as 1972: Re-election of an ethically challenged Republican incumbent, loss of a guerilla war, toadying to totalitarian regimes (China, anyone?), impeachment, mental breakdown and premature retirement. A vote for Bush is a vote for Cheney, man! The handwriting is on the wall--can you dig it? Or should I say, grok it?

Robert Fulton|10.26.04 @ 2:10AM|#

Worst comment section I have read today. Guess you all deserve an "A" for effort, considering the subject. I just wonder why the endorsement of "The New Yorker" editorial staff is considered worth commenting upon at all. Dog bites man. I suppose that it is a sign that we are about out of news and should vote.

|10.26.04 @ 9:56AM|#

Morat - To paraphrase our Great Leader: "A 'presidential endorsement' is not a litany of complaints." But Mr. Fulton is right, these comments are rather pointless.

|10.26.04 @ 2:06PM|#

"He is plainly the better choice." Ah. Well, then I suppose I ought to...
Nah.