Staggering, hilarious reaction to Denver Post * endorsement...

[RobertDevereaux]

Today's (10/26) Denver Post letters column has reader reaction to the Post's endorsement of the Chimp.

Brighten your day. Read all of these letters!

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E416%257E,00.html

Rumor has it that the editorial board wanted to endorse Kerry, but the owner of the paper, a RW asshole, said no.

EXCERPT OF WHAT THEY SAID TODAY IN A SIDEBAR:

"Editor's note: More than 700 readers have given us their thoughts on Sunday's presidential endorsement, and they add up to a passionate dissent. . . . Every letter we received was critical of the Post endorsement; we publish a sampling here today."

Did you catch that? 700 letters, *all* of them opposed!

TWO OF THE BEST LETTERS:

Shock and awe cannot begin to describe the way I felt when opening your newspaper on Sunday to find a Bush endorsement. It's time to say goodbye to The Post. Having had a subscription in my family for 45 years, I did pause for a moment in cancelling my subscription. But only for a moment. 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.

Lynn Highland, Morrison

...

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.

Arnold Grossman, Denver

[ClassWarrior]

1. That's beautiful.

24.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Similarly funny one:

The Post's endorsement for president was entirely on the mark, except for one glaring error: the headline writer mistakenly wrote "George W. Bush" when the endorsement was obviously intended for John Kerry. Are the editors familiar with the phrase "Damning with faint praise"?

John Bair, Golden

[Inland]

3. Chicago Tribune endorsment similar: listing an indictment, then the

surprise conclusion that doesn't follow.

[hlthe2b]

4. Thank heavens... Apparently SLC residents did the same after the

leading Utah paper similarly bowed to publisher pressure & endorsed the cretin.

[calico1]

5. Wow! Salt Lake City residents?

And that is a pretty Red State. That is good to hear.

[Gaffey Duck]

7. I'm not surprised...

The mayor is supposedly a borderline socialist.

[calico1]

13. Really? That is very interesting.

Of course all I really know about Utah is that it is the land of the Mormons so like a lot of people I just assume the vast majority of people there are very religious and very Conservative.

[coloradodem2005]

6. These are great.

:)

[CrispyQ]

8. Thanks for sharing this . . .

...as I cancelled my sub yesterday.

[Beetwasher]

9. WHAT? EVERY LETTER Was Critical???? That's Friggin' Amazing!

n/t

[Protagoras]

24. But but but it's a dead heat!

This is hilarious.

[Jacobin]

10. "He's done sooooo badly that we must see if he can fix it

so we must give him another four years?"

Funny stuff.

[sui generis]

11. someone needs to get their ass canned

How can a newspaper be that out of touch with its readership? Worse, how can an endorsement be given in the face of overwhelming criticism, struck by the same pen?

The FBI must have "found" some kiddie porno or pictures of mangled baby ducks belonging to one of the editors.

[WoodrowFan]

15. it was the publisher

it was the publisher's decision, not the editors'

[MsTryska]

16. The person who needs to get canned is

the Editor in Chief or the Publisher, i think. WHoever the Big Cheese is.


The editorial board voted to endorse Kerry, and the Big Guy said Nein. If this is the paper i'm thinking of.

[spooky3]

20. You may be thinking of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

[MsTryska]

22. I was, but the original post in this thread

seems to be having similar problems to plain dealer...

[HFishbine]

12. "More than 700 readers have given us their thoughts...

... Every letter we received was critical of the Post endorsement."

Damn!

[Cocoa]

14. that's what they get

for endorsing the Worst President Ever.

700-0, that's incredible. Newspapers will think twice before trying to scam their readers like this.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. Now there'll be a rush of letters praising and supporting them

And they'll all use the same phrasing.

[lil-petunia]

18. not as many as you suggest. remember, crayons and toilet paper

don't survive modern post office equipment all the well.

[nyhuskyfan]

19. It seems to me...

That the editorial board was told who their endorsement was going to be by those above them -- so they wrote the most ridiculous endorsement in the history of endorsements. The publisher(s) got what he/she/they wanted, but the editorial board did everything they could to sabotage that endorsement.

There's no other explanation. The endorsement was so laughably negative towards Bush that there's no way the authors of that piece were agreeing with the conclusion.

[spooky3]

21. 700 for 700 is absolutely amazing. Go Denver citizens!

[leftofthedial]

23. yeah, those RW wack job publishers

have no influence over the liburl media they own

[RobertDevereaux]

25. Kick

[GOPBasher]

26. Oh this is the funniest one!!!

"The Post's endorsement for president was entirely on the mark, except for one glaring error: the headline writer mistakenly wrote "George W. Bush" when the endorsement was obviously intended for John Kerry. Are the editors familiar with the phrase "Damning with faint praise"?"

John Bair, Golden