From the editorial pages

We know that GMD isn't your whole media diet, but this morning there are some new editorials and columns that merit your attention. 

First off, this week's Seven Days features a great column by Paul Heintzabout the race for State Treasurer.  We share his pleasure at the fact that Beth Pearce's campaign has gotten into gear, but what is really striking is this:

 Allow me to be the first reporter in Vermont to admit that I am in no way qualified to judge whether Beth Pearce is a good state treasurer. I have a hard enough time balancing my own checkbook.

And consider me guilty of Perkinson’s charge: I’m far more interested in covering the latest Wilton accusation than I am in Vermont’s nearly impeccable bond rating, for which Pearce can rightfully take a lion’s share of the credit.

But I consider myself a decent judge of integrity. And one thing I’ve found during this campaign is that Pearce appears to have a lot of it and Wilton does not.

 

 Even for people who don't pay much attention between elections to what the Treasurer does, this is a very powerful conclusion. I encourage you to read the entire column to get the full sense of where Paul's coming from.

On the national scene, it's no surprise who the people around here are supporting, but I have rarely seen the case made as clearly as in this week's New Yorker. I've seen people make sport of this editorial, joking that the New Yorker endorsement guarantees Obama's reelection (note that the GMD style book doesn't call for the New Yorker dieresis); although it's undoubtedly true that most New Yorker readers are Democrats, the substance is what is essential here.

The New Yorker editorial provides historical and cultural context, an appreciation of the dire situation facing the newly inaugurated President in 2009, and a recognition of the difficulties adhering to President Obama's reelection campaign. Nevertheless, the editorial also sets forth an effective rejoinder to the hateful comments of the "no difference caucus" whose voice is heard so commonly on the Left.

 

 
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the $787-billion stimulus package—was well short of what some economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, thought the crisis demanded. But it was larger in real dollars than any one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal measures. It reversed the job-loss trend—according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 3.6 million private-sector jobs have been created since June, 2009—and helped reset the course of the economy. It also represented the largest public investment in infrastructure since President Eisenhower’s interstate-highway program. From the start, though, Obama recognized that it would reap only modest political gain. “It’s very hard to prove a counterfactual,” he told the journalist Jonathan Alter, “where you say, ‘You know, things really could have been a lot worse.’ ” He was speaking of the bank and auto-industry bailouts, but the problem applies more broadly to the stimulus: harm averted is benefit unseen.
 
 
 
 
The editorial is long, three full pages, and it catalogues the array of reasons to support Obama and oppose Romney without giving ammunition to the fraudulent claims that Obama supporters are worshipful admirers blind to his shortcomings.
 
As with the Paul Heintz column, I recommend you read the entire thing, and then go out and vote for President Obama. 
 
Go to VT State Page
origin Blog: 
origin Author: 
Comments Count: 
0
Showing 0 comments