Present an argument!
This was the editorial for the State News today:
Yes, that was all. I am completely outraged. That is not an editorial. It's a bumper sticker. If students are going to be putting together a paper, they have to put in more substance than that. Do your jobs.
Less freedom, more fear
Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything.
Five years later, don't stay the course. Vote for change Nov. 7.
Yes, that was all. I am completely outraged. That is not an editorial. It's a bumper sticker. If students are going to be putting together a paper, they have to put in more substance than that. Do your jobs.
Comments
People are dumb.
But you're right. Let's disect the "editorial."
"Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything." Fine. I could get involved with semantics on this one but it wouldn't lead anywhere.
"Five years later, don't stay the course." It's an obvious reference to the Bush administration's insistance that we have to "stay the course." Of course the interpretation of the meaning of "stay the course" is different for those in the Bush camp than it is for the opponents. What they are really saying is don't stay with the current administration.
"Vote for change on Nov. 7." I want to shout out, "Bush is not up for reelection!" Who is going to be on the ballot for Michigan State students? Do they really want to vote out the incumbent Governor who is a democrat? Or what about the current Congressman? Sure, Rep. Mike Rogers may be a Republican, but that is kind of a startling reversal for the State News who enthusiastically endorsed him two years ago.
So I'm kind of confused as to why the State News would come up with this short piece of crap. In the end, it says absolutely nothing while at the same time it convey's a "screw Bush" type of sentiment. The thing is, Bush is here 'till his term is up.
And the actions of this administration in Iraq (and its ineffective communication to the populace about those actions) will continue to inspire the kind of attitudes that motivated this "editorial" and will drag down Republicans in local and state elections.
in 1999 the general public suffered from "Clinton fatigue" that probably unfairly dragged down Gore. In 2008, "Iraq fatigue" associated with the GOP will probably (fairly or not) drag down Bush's would-be GOP successor.
That is, if the Democratic nominee can articulate any viable alternative; not something we've seen much of from that side of the aisle these past few years.
In the meantime, people will "vote against Bush" by campaigning against and voting against Republicans locally. And frankly, based on our collective decisions in the 2000 primary, that's exactly what we (Republicans) deserve.
It is sad that I feel like I have to choose between two evils when decent enough legislators like Joe Schwartz are being abandoned. Maybe the Republicans need to be slapped around in order to get their act together. But while they dress their wounds, do I really want someone like Rep. Pelosi becoming Speaker? *shudder*
Again with this "editorial," I don't mind that they want us to vote against Bush. But I expect them to outline the reasons why.