Back in 1999, when Nicole Kidman was junketeering for Eyes Wide Shut, she kept telling reporters that she's really a very shy girl, who just happens to appear naked in a lot of high-profile movies. She is not--she said repeatedly--an exhibitionist. Right.
By the same token, lots of journalists have recently taken to public declarations of their voting intentions. Like Nicole Kidman, I'm sure this has nothing to do with exhibitionism.
Instead, as Jacob Weisberg helpfully explains at Slate, it's all about fairness and "the distinction between opinion and bias." I believe him!
That said, it's worth taking a look at Slate's list of staff endorsements. You will be unsurprised to learn that John Kerry is going to carry the Slate offices 46 to 5. What might surprise you, however, are some of the fairly crazy explanations offered by Slaterns in defense of their endorsements:
* Phillip Carter: Bush "employ[s] lawyers to eviscerate the rule of law"
* Sara Dickerman: "I'd like to see the Social Security, due process, freedom of speech, and the right to choose when and if to have a family preserved for my newborn child"
* Mia Fineman: "I don't want to see our government further colonized by the fundamentalist Christian right."
* David Greenberg: "I'd vote for practically anyone instead of Bush, because I don't think he really believes in democracy."
* Jon Katz: Bush "seems to me to be mixing politics and religion, in this case talking to God rather than listening to advisers, foreign leaders, or voters."
* Laura Kipnis: Bush "appoints theocrats and neo-segregationists to the federal bench"
* Dahlia Lithwick: Bush has "lost sight of the fact that what makes Americans both strong and free is the rule of law"
* Charlie Powell: "Bush and Co. stole the 2000 election."
* Dana Stevens: Bush "and his cabal of gnarled trolls have taken our great country (not to mention all of the Middle East) down a path that it's possible no election will ever be able to fix."
* Robert Wright: "[Kerry's] a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ."
Is this stuff nuts? You betcha. But here, once again, is Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, explaining "the kind of journalism Slate practices": "When you advance a hypothesis, you must test it against reality. When you make a political argument, you must take seriously the significant arguments on the other side."
Yeah, that's the ticket. It's not like they just want attention or anything.
12 hours ago
Everyone stopped listening during the past 4 years. GW never started. People say ridiculous things now because debate is impossible. It doesn't matter whether the administration is proven wrong, because they'll stick to the talking points no matter how little sense they make in context. He couldn't think of one mistake in 3+ years, indeed. No one seems to care what anyone says, so why not dive into hyperbole with both feet . . . I try not to got that route myself, but it happens from time to time. Sure, sure, he "stole the election" or his brother or katherine wells stole it. whatever. If it was really that close, he clearly didn't have to steal that much of it.
Stem cells, abstinence only, god, the saudis (haha), talking points, softball press conferences, just pick one and pretend I said it, so that you can then go on to imagining it doesn't matter what I say.
I can't wait til either Wednesday or Jan 21 2009 when republicans can finally start saying what they have hated about him all along.
Admit it, I know you people read books. I know you've been inside school buildings. You can't all be fundamentalists. You're not rich enough to be in favor of supply side economics, and you're not all defense contractors. You can't call Paul O'Neill a liberal. It's just partisan stand-by-your-man nonsense, and the fantasy of the "permanent republican majority."
What's your pet issue that lets you overlook all the clear evidence that GW is a nut?
Post a Comment