Things that make you go hmmmmm
The New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary. This is the same NYT that endorsed the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000. So, let me get this straight, he should have been Vice President (and, let's face it, had they won in 2000, Gore-Lieberman would have gotten the NYT endorsement again in 2004) but he shouldn't be a Senator. Could someone please explain this to me? Consensus-building, moderation, and sensibility must have gone out of fashion at meetings of the Old Gray Lady editorial board sometime in the last couple of years.
posted by lakhawk @
Permalink
6 Comments:
Well Lakhawk, let me proceed slowy for you, as there are a number of ways in which you are obviously confused in your thinking.
1. Endorsing the Gore-Liberman ticket in 2000 does not equate to claiming the vice presidential candidate "should be" vice president. It is an endorsement of one ticket over another in the specific context of a particular election.
2. Becasue a particular endorsement is only relevant to a single election, there is nothing inconsitent whatsoever should Newspaper prefer candidate A to B in election 1, and candidate C to A in election 2. Can you understand that?
3. Without a doubt in a US Presidential election, the Presidential candidates' policies are far more determinative of any newspaper's endorsement than the vice president's polices. You may not be aware, but in our system of government, the President or "Cheif Executive" controls all the power of the Executive branch. The Vice President actually has zero power, except for breaking ties in the Senate.
4 Because endorsements only apply to a single election, it follows that not only is it consistent to prefer candidate C over A but candidate A over B, it is also completely consistent to prefer Candidate A over B in election 1, but candidate B over A in election 2! If time has passed such that the candidates' policies have changed or have been revealed not to be what the candidate claimed they were, then there is nothing confusing about a Newspaper changing their preference even for the same two candidates!
For instance, with Lieberman, the world hadn't yet been changed by 9/11/01 in the year 2000, but afterward, for 5 whole years since 2000, he supported all of Bush's ugly, bloody Iraq war that was sold with misrrepresentations and what some even call outright lies, even after Bush's "intelligence failures" were revelaed to the public.
Can you follow how major world changing events and 6 years of policy decisions might further inform a newspaper's editorial staff in making subsequent endorsements of a candidate they endosed years ago in a race against a completely different candidate?
I hope this helps. Next time you seek to imply the NY Times is being inconsistent, I wish you a bit better luck!
Perhaps you should read this, as I think it applies to you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/sciencespecial2/15essa.html?8dpc
By
lazerlou, at 10:48 PM, August 14, 2006
Here's that Link
By
lazerlou, at 10:53 PM, August 14, 2006
Gee, lou, thanks for taking the time to condescend to me yet again. What would Lawfairy and I do without you attempting to ridicule us on a regular basis?
I am well aware that the world has changed significantly since the 2000 presidential election. If you reread the last sentence of my post, you might catch the larger point, which you so conveniently glossed over. The very traits for which Sen. Lieberman was lauded over the last few years (not just in 2000) are what has lead him to take the positions which resulted in his fall from grace in the Democratic party. The minute his "principled" and "moderate" approach resulted in a position that didn’t correspond with the Dems’ single-issue election strategy, he was no longer their golden boy.
FYI, next time you want to imply that you're intellectually superior to someone, you might want to try doing it without spelling errors.
By
lakhawk, at 11:19 PM, August 14, 2006
watch out, LAKHawk! If you defend yourself he might accuse you of being "oversensitive"! lol
By
Law Fairy, at 12:58 AM, August 15, 2006
Lakhawk,
that you would equate intellectual ability with typing and taking the time to run a spell check or reread a comment is all too telling.
And your last sentence was out of context and not relevant to the main point of your post: the(retarded) implication that the NYT was being inconsistent by endorsing the Gore Liebermann ticket in 2000 but endorsing Lamont over Lieberman. You have no idea how moderate or consensus builing Lamont might be expect for the war issue. And blindly supporting the President's war in Iraq, based on misrepresentations and fearmongering, is hardly "principled" or "moderate." Or have you not taken measure of what the majority of americans feel about the Iraq war. Joe Lieberman becasme a war mongering extremeist whose views run counter to mainstream views about the war.
If you don't want to be condescended to, don't write things that make you come off like an ignorant fool and an idiot.
By
lazerlou, at 1:55 PM, August 15, 2006
A few (final) points for Lou:
1. If you don't have to use basic proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in your comments, then I don't have to treat every post on my (as previously explained) just-for-fun blog like a graduate thesis.
2. It’s called a rhetorical question. It is a figure of speech, a rhetorical device, used for effect, not to actually elicit an answer. See also irony, hyperbole, and humor.
3. We don't call each other names on my blog. If you can't play nice and make your points without resorting to insults and derogatory adjectives ("retarded"), I'm going to have to start removing your comments.
4. If I'm such an idiot, perhaps you should not waste any more of your time reading or commenting on my blog.
By
lakhawk, at 2:26 PM, August 15, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home