Democrats, Don't Muck This One Up
On October 10th, 2018 Michelle Cottle posted an article called "Democrats, Don't Muck This One Up" for the New York Times. Cottle is a member of the NY Times editorial board, so she has fairly outstanding credentials. Despite having a headline that seems derogatory for Democrats, this article is very heavily intended for the leftist readers. Her main purpose is to motivate the Democratic voters to have a great turnout for the ever-important Midterm Election; and to use the appointment of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to help fuel the fire.
There is no debate over the importance of the upcoming election. Cottle efficiently summed up the state of our political climate with the declaration "The only way to get the attention of a Republican Party that has proved itself interested in nothing more than power is to take away that power. Until that happens, the rest is just noise." Thus, if Democrats have a high voter turnout, they will be able to shift the influence of the government.
Another crucial piece of advice Cottle offers is "Democrats must resist the urge to follow Republicans down this spider hole, or that of any radioactive topic designed to inflame partisan passions." The most important aspect of a voter is to be educated. That involves being able to recognize the credibility or motivation behind political statements. At this point in time BOTH parties are making dramatic accusations about the other in an attempt to persuade American voters. It is our responsibility as citizens to not fall for these schemes.
Finally, Cottle observes that thanks to the antics of President Trump, Democrats are already strongly motivated to show up. Thus, the party's main objective should be to "persuade people in not-so-blue areas of the country to give it a second chance." Personally, I strongly agree with this strategic approach. As a young citizen, I am surrounded by peers who despise the Republican Party and are fired up to vote. However, I am worried about the smaller towns (in Texas specifically) because I am not as acclimated to their societal norms.
Overall, Cottle published a very accurate article over the importance of the turnout of the Democratic Party. My only criticism is it's very liberal nature. As a non-partisan voter, strongly influenced articles cause me to read with some skepticism. Otherwise, she did a very good job at motivating the Democratic voters to engage in the upcoming voting cycle.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Friday, October 5, 2018
The Case Against Kavanaugh
How Brett Kavanaugh Failed
The accusations against Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh have caused many Americans to understand that he doesn’t have the judicial temperament to serve as a Supreme Court justice. The Editorial Board of the New York Times recently posted an article titled “How Brett Kavanaugh Failed” overviewing his situation. The Editorial Board represents the voices of not only the board, but also it’s editor and publisher. The fact that this article was handled by so many people assures the reader that it is a credible article.
This article is liberally biased due to the fact that Kavanaugh is a strong Republican. Thus, the intended audience is those who lean on the left, and would like more information about Kavanaugh’s wrong doings. This article makes several cases against Kavanaugh’s capability of becoming a Supreme Court justice. The first and most notable of which, is the fact that he gave misleading answers under oath. Judges must have “unimpeachable integrity” which Kavanaugh clearly lacks. If he lied about “small issues” you’d have to think that he’d be untrustworthy on more important issues as well. The next argument against him is that when confronted, he relied on partisanship rather than the methodical process or reason. A judge should ideally be above politics, and the fact that he intertwined the two to seek out Republican support is wrong.
Speaking of wrong, the simple fact that there are allegations of sexual assault, albeit a long time ago, should immediately disqualify someone from the Supreme Court. Ever since Christine Blasey Ford came out against Kavanaugh, she has been genuine and cooperative. Quite simply put, “to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh now is to declare that her accusations mean nothing.”
This article was very informative and did a great job communicating their arguments against Kavanaugh despite its blatant liberal bias. As a non-partisan citizen, I attempted to take politics out of the discussion when contemplating my stance on Kavanaugh. Although he might be innocent, and the things he did were a long time ago, the Supreme Court should consist only of those with the utmost integrity. The members should never have scandals come out against them. I refuse to degrade his worth as a human being because of mistakes he was accused of, but I can certainly say that he is not fit for the Supreme Court.
The accusations against Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh have caused many Americans to understand that he doesn’t have the judicial temperament to serve as a Supreme Court justice. The Editorial Board of the New York Times recently posted an article titled “How Brett Kavanaugh Failed” overviewing his situation. The Editorial Board represents the voices of not only the board, but also it’s editor and publisher. The fact that this article was handled by so many people assures the reader that it is a credible article.
This article is liberally biased due to the fact that Kavanaugh is a strong Republican. Thus, the intended audience is those who lean on the left, and would like more information about Kavanaugh’s wrong doings. This article makes several cases against Kavanaugh’s capability of becoming a Supreme Court justice. The first and most notable of which, is the fact that he gave misleading answers under oath. Judges must have “unimpeachable integrity” which Kavanaugh clearly lacks. If he lied about “small issues” you’d have to think that he’d be untrustworthy on more important issues as well. The next argument against him is that when confronted, he relied on partisanship rather than the methodical process or reason. A judge should ideally be above politics, and the fact that he intertwined the two to seek out Republican support is wrong.
Speaking of wrong, the simple fact that there are allegations of sexual assault, albeit a long time ago, should immediately disqualify someone from the Supreme Court. Ever since Christine Blasey Ford came out against Kavanaugh, she has been genuine and cooperative. Quite simply put, “to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh now is to declare that her accusations mean nothing.”
This article was very informative and did a great job communicating their arguments against Kavanaugh despite its blatant liberal bias. As a non-partisan citizen, I attempted to take politics out of the discussion when contemplating my stance on Kavanaugh. Although he might be innocent, and the things he did were a long time ago, the Supreme Court should consist only of those with the utmost integrity. The members should never have scandals come out against them. I refuse to degrade his worth as a human being because of mistakes he was accused of, but I can certainly say that he is not fit for the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)