Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Thanatos
at least one who hasnąt drunk the Kool-Aid.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist,
and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current
state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper ‹ almost every local daily paper
in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before
the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague
emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more
accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to
approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be
able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor ‹ which especially
would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people
to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes,
but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house ‹ along with
their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.
One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried
repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such
attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political
contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to
make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were
allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to
contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support
increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700
billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which
politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage
lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party
or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a
vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank,
both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused
Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these
agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost
up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts
Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com <http://snipurl.com/457to>
] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's
Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The
party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic
Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican
deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to
account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took
offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who
is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million
while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one
presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on
housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have
called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper
every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried
this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an
"adviser" to the Obama campaign ‹ because that campaign had sought his
advice ‹ you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain
of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to
the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles,
you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all
Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically
selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including
Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you
would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow
Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration
never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not
stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension ‹ so you pounded
us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you
created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that
there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American
people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they
tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama
because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as
hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim
you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your
paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie
‹ that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and
the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad ‹ even bad weather ‹ on Bush, and they are responding as
you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be
insisting on telling the truth ‹ even if it hurts the election chances
of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth
even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty
means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has
revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time ‹ and you have swept
it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin,
reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried
daughter ‹ while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery
for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know
what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will
throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women
threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his
well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who
listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no
principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the
truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and
earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list
of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been
getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with
its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its
lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories
will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which
put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about
helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a
Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the
truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once
to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton
administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and
blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe ‹
and vote as if ‹ President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis,
then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats ‹ including Barack
Obama ‹ and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants
were Republicans ‹ then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and
it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we
can actually have a news paper in our city.
topcat
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-6A5D92...@news.giganews.com...
> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see thereıs
> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
>
>
<snip>
This is a great article that rightly points out what any clear thinking
person has known for years. The MSM is just a wing of the DNC.
As I pointed out to Dave earlier, the day after Biden makes a statement that
reflects badly on Obama, I turn on the TV and all I see is how much Sarah
Palin has spent on clothes.
I guess they figure "useful idiots" like Salad, Nerf and Idiotangible won't
notice because they're too busy looking at Obama's aura.
TC
universe
properly identified as a George Bush-supporting Republican.
2. To say that the current fiscal crisis was caused by Democrats and that
Republicans wanted to prevent it is an egregious misreading of what
happened. There's plenty of blame to go around, to both sides of the aisle,
to Paulson, Bernanke and Cox, to Wall Street, to Main Street, to you and to
me, to the USA and to the rest of the world.
3. I have literally NEVER seen the mainstream press lay the whole blame for
the mess at the feet of the Republicans. In fact the most common analysis I
see is that all sides are at fault but that the public typically punishes
the president during an economic crisis, because it happened on "his
watch".
4. Here is McCain's problem: Not that the press is "liberal", but that
members of the press are uniformly SMART, and McCain is targeting the
totality of his message to dumb people. Do you really expect to be able to
call your opponent an appeaser or a terrorist or a communist (or a
"celebrity"), and have it breathlessly reported to the world? You can't,
because such inanities are offensive to anyone who gets their knowledge of
the world from books rather than bumper stickers.
Better that McCain had picked Romney as VP, someone who is universally
praised as smart and capable. Then he could have run a dignified campaign
and put to work all those conservative intellectuals who are now abandoning
McCain's ship.
intang...@yahoo.com
late 90s...?
Thanatos
universe <univ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. Card CALLS himself a Democrat for certain reasons, but he would be more
> properly identified as a George Bush-supporting Republican.
Well, let's see... he's pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-amnesty and a believer
in big government social programs. Granted, Bush is also pro-amnesty so
one out of four ain't bad.
Yeah, I'm no big fan of McCain.
universe
news:atropos-82CA2E...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns9B3FCFB7BA9C...@69.16.185.250>,
> universe <univ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Card CALLS himself a Democrat for certain reasons, but he would be
>> more properly identified as a George Bush-supporting Republican.
>
> Well, let's see... he's pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-amnesty and a
> believer in big government social programs. Granted, Bush is also
> pro-amnesty so one out of four ain't bad.
>
But he votes Republican, which is the main reason I choose to classify him
as such. He endorsed Bush/Cheney during the last go-round, and he has come
out in favor of McCain this year. That's fine, but to do so while
proclaiming yourself to be a Democrat is a bit disingenuous.
BTW, I really like him as a writer. I've read at least a half-dozen of his
books. But for a variety of reasons I think he should stick to science
fiction.
Larc
| Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
| news:atropos-82CA2E...@news.giganews.com:
|
| > In article <Xns9B3FCFB7BA9C...@69.16.185.250>,
| > universe <univ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| >> 1. Card CALLS himself a Democrat for certain reasons, but he would be
| >> more properly identified as a George Bush-supporting Republican.
| >
| > Well, let's see... he's pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-amnesty and a
| > believer in big government social programs. Granted, Bush is also
| > pro-amnesty so one out of four ain't bad.
| >
|
| But he votes Republican, which is the main reason I choose to classify him
| as such. He endorsed Bush/Cheney during the last go-round, and he has come
| out in favor of McCain this year. That's fine, but to do so while
| proclaiming yourself to be a Democrat is a bit disingenuous.
Being a Democrat means you no longer have freedom of choice???
Larc
universe
news:dduvf4h9sdo2iv8ef...@4ax.com:
Assuming that words have meaning, then yes.
At best, Card is an independant. He just likes to call himself a Democrat
so that he can pretend his stand is more principled than the next person's.
Mickey
Jeez, that's about as good a definition of the left wing of the
Democratic Party as I've seen: people who likes to pretend their stance
is more principled than the next person's. Maybe you aren't as stupid as
I've always thought.
The Other Mickey
Micki Epstein
> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see thereıs
> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
>
No offense intended to Judy but Card is as much a Democrat as shr is.
Micki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Personal_views
Card is active as a critic, political writer, and speaker. Shortly after
the September 11, 2001 attacks Card began to write a weekly column named
variously "War Watch", "World Watch", or "Civilization Watch", depending
upon the topic. The column is published in the Greensboro Rhinoceros Times.
Card also writes an "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything" column. Both columns
are archived on Card's websites. Card is a vocal supporter of many aspects
of George W. Bush's leadership style, the war on terror, aspects of the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Card was attending Mormon worship service in California on June 29 2008
when a letter from President Thomas S. Monson of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints was read out, asking all active members to "do all you
can" to support the California Proposition 8 (2008) by "donating of your
means and time...to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."[10] In
response to that letter, Card began a series of articles as part of his
regular column in the Mormon Times "to address, one by one, my compelling
secular arguments in favor of giving permanent heterosexual pairings a
monopoly on legally recognized status in all societies"[11].
[edit] Political identification
Card identifies himself as a Democrat because he is pro-gun
control/anti-National Rifle Association, highly critical of free-market
capitalism, and because he believes that the Republican party in the South
continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:[12]
" Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people
don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record
is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell)... The Democratic
Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big
money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the
Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians-when
they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the
segregationist past. "
He has described himself as a Moynihan Democrat, and later as a "Tony
Blair" Democrat, saying he has to look outside the U.S. for someone
representative for his views now that Moynihan has died and the Democrats
oppose Bush. He has written columns condemning extremist liberals as being
part of what's wrong with America, and praises Zell Miller for trying to
save the Democratic Party. During the 2004 election Card wrote many
articles supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket, criticizing John Kerry, and
lambasting his own state's senator, John Edwards, as being absurd,
insincere, and an opportunistic shill. Prior to the 2004 presidential race,
Card had written that his state needed to regain control from people like
Edwards and advocated running a strong primary opponent against Edwards
should he run for reelection to the Senate.[13] He has also been a staunch
defender of Fox News, stating that "It's a good feeling to hear about our
war from people who actually think it would be a good thing if we win."
[14] Card also publicly endorses children of illegal immigrants receiving
in-state college tuition rates[15] and has stated there is a need for
moderation in tax cuts.[16]
On November 6, 2006, just one day before a major election in the United
States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he
encourages voters to support the Republicans:
" There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten
years from now, and that's the War on Terror... I say this as a Democrat,
for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that
I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations. But
there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered
if we lose this war. "
On October 20, 2008, less than two weeks before the Presidential election
in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for The Greensboro Rhino
Times, where he chastises the US media for hiding the true blame for the
2008 Credit Crisis and for mis-directing public perception in favor of
Senator Barak Obama. The article's aim is to find reporters who will
vigorously report the truth, regardless of whether it is for or against
their preferred political candidate.
Larc
| >| But he votes Republican, which is the main reason I choose to
| >| classify him as such. He endorsed Bush/Cheney during the last
| >| go-round, and he has come out in favor of McCain this year. That's
| >| fine, but to do so while proclaiming yourself to be a Democrat is a
| >| bit disingenuous.
| >
| > Being a Democrat means you no longer have freedom of choice???
| >
| > Larc
|
|
| Assuming that words have meaning, then yes.
|
| At best, Card is an independant. He just likes to call himself a Democrat
| so that he can pretend his stand is more principled than the next person's.
I align myself with a party because that party's stated beliefs more closely
agree with my beliefs. But that doesn't mean I blindly support every candidate
the party puts forth if I feel that candidate doesn't adhere to the principles I
hold dear. Further, I rely on my own judgment about a candidate's fitness for
office. If another party is running a candidate that I feel is better qualified
and is more in sync with my beliefs, then I'll vote for him (or her). IOW, even
though I may pay some attention to the hyperbole of a trusted newspaper's
advertising, it's the quality of the actual product itself that determines my
ultimate choice.
In the end, a political party is one of those rare things in which the parts are
greater than the whole. The people individually matter more than the
organization.
Maybe Card feels much the same way I do.
Larc
Mickey
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:34:19 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>
>> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see thereıs
>> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
>>
> No offense intended to Judy but Card is as much a Democrat as shr is.
>
> Micki
No offense to you, but a lot of Democrats still fondly remember Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and his ilk and think that the present direction of the
party is wrong. It's doubtful that the ghost of Jack Kennedy would vote
for Nancy Pelosi, though I'm sure Pelosi would try to count the vote,
anyway.
Ask yourself Micki, if there is any Democrat for whom you would not
vote, then ask if there is any Republican for whom you would vote. Be
specific. The closer your answer is to none and none, the closer you
come to personifying the central political problem in this country.
The Other Mickey
Locutus
> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
>
I don't know anything about his politics, but he is a great sci-fi writer. I
have read at least 7 of his books. Enders Game is at the top of my
recommended reading list. :)
Locutus
"zob" <zob@ cox.net> wrote in message
news:3ia1g4phg733o0ag7...@4ax.com...
>
> If your brain were on the edge of a razor blade, it would be life a
> golf ball on an eight lane highway. And all except for maybe two of
> the dimples on that golf ball would be ego.
>
You have used this a few times before, time for some new material. ;)
Locutus
"Larc" <la...@notmyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:db01g49pmodok2qfl...@4ax.com...
Who do you think JFK would endorse? McCain or Obama?
My money is on McCain.
CatNipped
news:lbudneNznogbMZ3U...@posted.nuvoxcommunications...
I liked the sequel series of that, the "Bean" ones.
Hugs,
CatNipped
Larc
<mickey_a...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net> wrote:
| Micki Epstein wrote:
| > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:34:19 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
| >
| >> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see thereıs
| >> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
| >>
| > No offense intended to Judy but Card is as much a Democrat as shr is.
| >
| > Micki
|
| No offense to you, but a lot of Democrats still fondly remember Daniel
| Patrick Moynihan and his ilk and think that the present direction of the
| party is wrong.
Now there was a thoroughly admirable politician. He often knocked reporters off
balance by answering their questions with a simple "yes" or "no." There was
never the slightest doubt about where he stood on a subject. We need people
like Moynihan in the White House, but they are far too intelligent to want the
job.
Compare him to the likes of Al Gore. I don't think anybody would ever get a
"yes" or "no" out of Gore if they asked him if he loved his mother. It would be
rare if they even knew his position with certainty when he got through his long
and meandering "answer."
Larc
Mickey
New material? How about good material? This contribution from the brain
of zob is as about as artful an old woman's fart.
The Other Mickey
Salad
Reagan as well as all good politicians have that inate ability to make
long winded responses to questions at when the politician stops speaking
you still have no idea if the question got answered.
There was a talk show host yesterday on KGO that was talking about
Reagan and Moynihan. Both were good friends that agreed to disagree.
But they we able to work together as well and the host wished there
wasn't the degree of animostity that exists today.
> Larc
CatNipped
news:bf3Mk.1248$%11...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Hugs,
CatNipped
Mickey
When Granny says "Pull my finger," she means it.
The Other Mickey
Locutus
"Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:25CdnekwQqGpV53U...@earthlink.com...
> Larc wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:50:53 -0700, Mickey
>> <mickey_a...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> | Micki Epstein wrote:
>> | > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:34:19 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>> | > | >> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see
I wish there were more animosity...
Larc
| On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:31:52 -0400, Larc <la...@notmyaddress.com>
| wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:07:54 GMT, universe <univ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| >| >| But he votes Republican, which is the main reason I choose to
| >| >| classify him as such. He endorsed Bush/Cheney during the last
| >| >| go-round, and he has come out in favor of McCain this year. That's
| >| >| fine, but to do so while proclaiming yourself to be a Democrat is a
| >| >| bit disingenuous.
| >| >
| >| > Being a Democrat means you no longer have freedom of choice???
| >| >
| >| > Larc
| >|
| >|
| >| Assuming that words have meaning, then yes.
| >|
| >| At best, Card is an independant. He just likes to call himself a Democrat
| >| so that he can pretend his stand is more principled than the next person's.
| >
| >I align myself with a party because that party's stated beliefs more closely
| >agree with my beliefs. But that doesn't mean I blindly support every candidate
| >the party puts forth if I feel that candidate doesn't adhere to the principles I
| >hold dear. Further, I rely on my own judgment about a candidate's fitness for
| >office. If another party is running a candidate that I feel is better qualified
| >and is more in sync with my beliefs, then I'll vote for him (or her). IOW, even
| >though I may pay some attention to the hyperbole of a trusted newspaper's
| >advertising, it's the quality of the actual product itself that determines my
| >ultimate choice.
|
| >Larc
|
| That makes sense, and is how I used to feel when I first registered to
| vote as Republican many years ago. But when I found myself voting
| for the person rather than the party in election after election, I
| changed my voter registration to "Independent." In 36 years of voting
| I've never seen a Presidential candidate with whose platform I've
| completely agreed.
I'm registered "Unaffiliated," which is what they call Independent in my state
(NC). I would register Libertarian, but that would mean I couldn't vote in
major party primaries. Now I can vote in either Democrat or Republican
primaries.
I've got three Presidential elections on you. ;)
Larc
Larc
That's not an easy question. I suspect he would toe the party line and vote
Democrat if he could manage it (JFK would be 91 if he were still living).
But there's no question that today's Democrat party is far left of JFK. Even
McCain is left of JFK.
Larc
Thanatos
<49mdncUNdY1tMZ3U...@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
"Locutus" <locutu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Who do you think JFK would endorse? McCain or Obama?
>
> My money is on McCain.
I'm not sure but if there were more Democrats like JFK still left around
at the national level, I might vote for some.
Micki Epstein
> Micki Epstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:34:19 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. Orson Scott Card is a big-time liberal. Refreshing to see thereıs
>>> at least one who hasnıt drunk the Kool-Aid.
>>>
>> No offense intended to Judy but Card is as much a Democrat as shr is.
>>
>> Micki
>
> No offense to you, but a lot of Democrats still fondly remember Daniel
> Patrick Moynihan and his ilk and think that the present direction of the
> party is wrong. It's doubtful that the ghost of Jack Kennedy would vote
> for Nancy Pelosi, though I'm sure Pelosi would try to count the vote,
> anyway.
>
> Ask yourself Micki, if there is any Democrat for whom you would not
> vote, then ask if there is any Republican for whom you would vote. Be
> specific. The closer your answer is to none and none, the closer you
> come to personifying the central political problem in this country.
>
> The Other Mickey
Definitely there are Democrats that I would not vote for and shock of
shocks, Democrats I haven't voted for. First one because you just mentioned
her is Nancy Pelosi. On Oct. 11th you said: "Obvious, the crowd
disagreed. Personally, I don't think the bulk of them disagreed with
anything except being scared of him as President. (If nothing else, there
needs to be a check on Nancy Pelosi, who is not even the sharpest spoon in
the drawer.)"
My reply on the same date: "On Pelosi, I totally agree."
I'm not sure if this counts but I voted against Mark Green (2001) and
Fernando Ferrer (2005) against Michael Bloomberg for Mayor and will vote
for him again next year. I'm not sure it counts because he did start off
as a Democrat and changed parties before 2001 to get a nomination.
Staying within NY politics I haven't and won't vote for Andrew Cuomo for
ANYTHING.
Right now I can't think of any living Republicans off the top of my head
that I'd vote for except for Colin Powell and I don't think you'd count
him :) Does Lincoln count? Seriously, I don't know enough about living
Republican politicians. I know I don't like most of the platforms that the
party has espoused. Ironically if you would have asked me 8 years ago, or
even 4, I would have said McCain.
Micki
Mickey
As you properly acknowledge, NY politics are hardly indicative. Giuliani
would be a Democrat nearly anywhere else other than SF. Cuomo's party
affiliation isn't even relevant. He'd be ponds scum (along with Spitzer)
regardless of which party would be willing to claim him.
>
> Right now I can't think of any living Republicans off the top of my head
> that I'd vote for except for Colin Powell and I don't think you'd count
> him :)
I'm increasingly thinking Powell more opportunist than partisan of any
sort, putting him into very poor company, in deed.
> Does Lincoln count? Seriously, I don't know enough about living
> Republican politicians. I know I don't like most of the platforms that the
> party has espoused.
If you looked carefully at the Democrat platforms, you wouldn't be
entirelyy happy with them either. Platforms are something you let the
wackos write while the real business is being done in the back room.
(Equally true for both parties.)
> Ironically if you would have asked me 8 years ago, or
> even 4, I would have said McCain.
McCain hasn't really changed, which is why I'm still not all that fond
of him. Only his rhetoric has. Unlike you, I do know a number of
Democrats I would be very inclined to support, starting with John
Breaux, former Senator from Louisiana.
The Other Mickey