NYT endorsing Obama.
I have been waiting with baited breath for most of the year to see who NYT would endorse for this election.
Friends told me “Look you are being silly, they always endorse a Democrat, they are bound to go for the chosen one.” I am not a cynic though and pointed out to them that they were wrong, I mean they endorsed Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and he was a Republican, how can friends be so cynical?
Admittedly the NYT hasn’t endorsed another Republican in the last 52 years, but you have to look at the quality of the candidates.
Look at the ringing endorsement for LBJ: -
In his frenetic dashing about the country, President Johnson stuck mainly to the safety of pious platitudes, interlaced with cloudy visions of the “Great Society.” …… It just cries out the quality of the candidate.
Well if you didn’t like that lets see why they liked Carter enough to recommend him over Reagan: -
Again and again Jimmy Carter seemed to be all sail and no boat, what did he do when his popularity sank in 1979? He fired half his cabinet and blamed the public for succumbing to malaise. …..
Mr. Carter’s economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through. But (heres the good part, probably written by their finance editor) isn’t muddling through just where economics is today? …. You can just see why they considered him a top man.
No, there is no satisfying you people, well here is why Mondale got the tick: -
Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag.
All right, that didn’t get you to vote the Donks in, the Dukakis one will do it surely: -
Michael Dukakis is not the unfocused incompetent his late and lame response made him seem. …. Now really you have to back a man of that quality.
The paper has backed five Republican contenders since 1880, McKinley, Taft, Wilkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower. Isn’t supporting us 6 times (twice for Ike) in 32 elections fair?
Admittedly the NYT hasn’t endorsed another Republican in the last 52 years, but you have to look at the quality of the candidates.
Look at the ringing endorsement for LBJ: -
In his frenetic dashing about the country, President Johnson stuck mainly to the safety of pious platitudes, interlaced with cloudy visions of the “Great Society.” …… It just cries out the quality of the candidate.
Well if you didn’t like that lets see why they liked Carter enough to recommend him over Reagan: -
Again and again Jimmy Carter seemed to be all sail and no boat, what did he do when his popularity sank in 1979? He fired half his cabinet and blamed the public for succumbing to malaise. …..
Mr. Carter’s economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through. But (heres the good part, probably written by their finance editor) isn’t muddling through just where economics is today? …. You can just see why they considered him a top man.
No, there is no satisfying you people, well here is why Mondale got the tick: -
Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag.
All right, that didn’t get you to vote the Donks in, the Dukakis one will do it surely: -
Michael Dukakis is not the unfocused incompetent his late and lame response made him seem. …. Now really you have to back a man of that quality.
The paper has backed five Republican contenders since 1880, McKinley, Taft, Wilkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower. Isn’t supporting us 6 times (twice for Ike) in 32 elections fair?
Why do you need a hard hat when you have a skull that's thicker? stick to digging holes, you were good at that.
ReplyDeletesalvatore; Readjust your tinfoil helmet, its on too tight.
ReplyDelete