NY Times Endorses No House Republicans

Today's editorial in the New York Times explains why the paper is not endorsing a single Republican for the House of Representatives this year. It's a damning and well-deserved indictment of Bush and Republican congresspersons.

First, the premise:

Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

Now, the indictment:

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception.....An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

The Times lists the failures of Republicans in Congress:

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

The election, says the Times, is a referendum on Bush.

Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results.

As for the future:

It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

< What Republicans Fear | Haggard Admitted to "Sexual Misconduct" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    WTF is wrong with people (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donna Darko on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 02:23:54 AM EST
    It's two days before the most crucial election ever in this country and the mainstream press finally takes responsibility? Adam Nagourney et al could have prevented Iraq, a million deaths and everything else with a little civic responsibilty.

    a little civic responsibilty (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    Liberally biased MSM. What's the world coming to? :-)

    Liberal media? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donna Darko on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    I'm still waiting.

    Election Eve Meditation (none / 0) (#4)
    by theologicus on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    I know Scott Horton, the distinguished NYC human rights lawyer, to be a person of the highest integrity and a scholar of measured judgments.

    His post at Balkinization today -- "An Election Eve Meditation" --taps into my deepest fears.  It concludes with these words:

    I fear for my country at this time. I fear for all of us and our world. Many of you may disagree with me. But I ask all to weigh this vote with care. This vote may be your last.

    According to electoral-vote.com, there are nine Sentae races that could go either way.  Perfect races for voting-machine manipulation.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    Re: Election Eve Meditation (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    Hortons' article, though long, is definitely worth a careful reading... Thanks, Theologicus.

    Here's the link, btw.