More protests over Bush endorsements
'What the fuck are they talking about?' demand Denver Post readers.
"A grand litany of failures, all of which you acknowledge."
"Every letter we received was critical of the Post endorsement" of the Chimp-in-Chief, editor writes. A sample:
I'm befuddled! You're endorsing George W. Bush for president while telling us that we're worse off than we were four years ago? You want us to vote for a man who, in your words, "squandered global good will," "labored erratically" and is "mishandling all things Iraq"? Sorry, it's not the kind of behavior I plan to reward.
I am so appalled that your editorial board could come out in support of such a terrible president as Bush. It completely astounds me that someone might think this president, upon re-election, will do anything to reverse his past mistakes or moderate his policies.
Incomprehensible.
I read The Denver Post's bizarre endorsement of George Bush with disbelief and dismay. Your conclusion defies the logic in your own analysis.
In other words, to The Post, it matters not that Bush chose the wrong route, but that he persists in driving over the cliff.
I am, in fact, flabbergasted at The Post's attempts to rationalize the president's record in reaching its conclusion. The Post repudiates his policies even while it endorses him for a second term.
I cannot support a group of people who are aiding and abetting the destruction of my country, by helping the campaign of a man who is not fit to be elected dog catcher.
Congratulations to The Post for its outstanding spoof, the send-up on newspaper endorsements in Sunday's paper. What a brilliant idea, spending nearly an entire page listing the failures of George W. Bush, building a strong case for denying him a second term, then delivering the hilarious punch line, endorsing him for re-election. In serious and troubling times, such comic relief is a pleasant respite.
No comments:
Post a Comment