Ringing Endorsements?
Last night, we celebrated Atomizer's pending nuptials with a bachelor party. As tradition dictates, details from said festivities will not be the subject of public discussion. Let's just say that I don't think Atomizer will be welcome at Nye's anytime soon.
This morning, as we nursed our hangovers at a safe house in an undisclosed location, we eased our pain with laughter. Laughter brought about by reading the predictable endorsements of John Kerry by the The New York Times and The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Both editorials are lengthy rants, more concerned with bashing George W. Bush than praising John Kerry. The Times piece is twenty-three paragraphs long consisting of 1694 words, with four, maybe five paragraphs and 342 words on Kerry. The Strib devotes eighteen paragraphs and 1149 words to their endorsement, with five paragraphs and 387 words for Kerry. Neither is about supporting Kerry as much as attacking Bush.
They both are chock full of DNC talking points and baseless assertions. They also contain similar language in a few instances. Compare their notes on Bush.
NYT: Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.
Strib: He ran as a moderate, but has pursued radical goals...
NYT: He sold the war to the American people...
Strib: He sold the war on Iraq...
NYT: ..a Nixonian obsession with secrecy..
Strib: Bush has governed with mendacity and secrecy at home... and He has proved to be the most divisive, insular and partisan president since Richard Nixon.
But when it comes to the invasion of Afghanistan, even the Times won't embrace the incredible attempt to rewrite history that the Strib indulges in:
NYT: Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support...
Strib: Though the Sept. 11 attacks brought an immediate outpouring of heartfelt sympathy and offers of help from abroad, Bush attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan on his own terms, virtually alone.
The choice of words in both editorials is also indicative of their vindictive nature.
The Times favors the use of the word "installed" rather than appointed, since it has a more ominous sound:
Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft... and the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed...
Here are some other choice cuts from the Times:
disastrous tenure, a far-reaching anti-choice agenda, obsession with Saddam Hussein, radical goals, specific fears
The Strib is even more over the top with pejorative terms:
devious dismantling, profoundly failed, dangerous departure, dangerous unilateralism, pattern of deception and secrecy
Not surprisingly, neither paper saw fit to devote similar linguistic efforts in explaining their preference for Kerry, as both offer up nothing but platitudes for their choice for President (this despite that Times' claim that "we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry"). It would have much easier, although not nearly as humorous, if the two bastions of liberal thought we have limited their editorials to three words that succinctly express their true feelings:
"Anybody but Bush."
No comments:
Post a Comment