Archive - Nov 5, 2008 - Editorial
Clippings article published Oct. 23, 2008
Let’s talk about editorials and this newspaper’s perspective over the past eight years.
Since 2000, this editor has been roundly criticized — and applauded — by readers reacting to editorials on the national or international scene. Many of those editorials have been about the elections with George W., about the invasion of Iraq, the economy, and what I have considered to be the misguided policies of the Bush administration.
Contrary to some publications, editorials are written with the premise of the piece clearly stated and one side of the issue boldly supported. Very few editorials are middle-of-the-road essays that point out both sides of the issue and let the reader decide which group of facts has the most validity. Picking one side of the issue and defending that point of view is precisely what editorials should do. And, yes, that means the editorials are biased. Of course they are. They reflect my research and my point of view. That doesn’t mean, however, they are not supported by facts or credible evidence that counters an opposing agenda.
But why write about those issues when that’s the purview of national publications, some critics ask, then suggest we write solely about local and state issues.
It’s a good point, and frankly, I would do my job better if I made it a priority to always include a local editorial to accompany any editorial on the world or national scene. Two shorter editorials would almost always be preferable.
But when the issues get mixed up with people’s emotional framework, rational discussion often falls by the wayside and partisan politics enters the fray. The strategic reasons for invading Iraq or not, for example, get lost within the emotional context of patriotism, God and country, and supporting the troops.
“Never in living memory has an election been more critical than (this) — that’s the quadrennial cliché, as expected as the balloons and the bombast. And yet when has it ever felt so urgently true? When have so many Americans had so clear a sense that a presidency has — at levels of competence, vision and integrity — undermined the country and its ideals?”
That was the opening paragraph of The New Yorker’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president on Oct. 13. It continued: “The Presidency of George W. Bush is the worst since Reconstruction, so there is no mystery about why the Republican Party — which has held dominion over the executive branch of the federal government for the past eight years and the legislative branch for most that time — has little desire to defend its record, domestic or foreign … Meanwhile, the nominee, Sen. John McCain, (has) played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever-increasing ardor.”
That this presidential election is the most critical of our times is a debate for historians decades hence, but certainly a record 93 percent of the American populace, according to recent polls, say we are going in the wrong direction. And certainly these two major party candidates offer stark differences in style and in the policies they would pursue.
It is no surprise to readers of this paper that we enthusiastically endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. We are impressed with his coolness under fire; his thoughtful and deliberate approach when addressing difficult issues; his skills as a campaigner, organizer and director of a massive undertaking these past 18 months that delivered a consistent message of hope that has inspired tens of millions of supporters. And he has done it with honor, integrity and clarity of purpose.
Democrat Tom Costello, a veteran legislator serving Rutland and Brattleboro, has an uphill battle in challenging incumbent Brian Dubie as the state’s lieutenant governor. But Costello’s pragmatic approach to the issues, experience in bipartisanship as a former legislator, and his ‘can-do attitude’ when it comes to reaching resolution on problems facing the state earn him this paper’s endorsement in an effort to unseat Dubie and bring new energy to the state’s second-highest post.
Costello is a likeable “Joe-Six-Pack” kind of guy who, even though he has a law degree, feels more comfortable talking in half sentences, tossing in a few choice words that come from his days as a Marine, and talking about practical measures to solve problems rather than whining about obstacles or politics. After six years of dodging the issues, his frankness is refreshing.
“Our present administration is not dealing specifically and effectively with these problems which are solvable,” Costello told the Independent last week in reference to re-licensing Vermont Yankee, financial hardships for Vermont’s seniors, and attracting new jobs to Vermont. “My experience is to work together in an aggressive way, but to work together and find a solution ... There is no reason why we can’t make these things happen. That’s been my experience.”