The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Best-vote-2010

Obama for president

Plus, Reed for Senate, Kennedy and Langevin for US House, and choices for State Senate, House, and more
By PROVIDENCE PHOENIX EDITORIAL STAFF  |  October 29, 2008

EDIT_ObamaEndorse_cKeviINSI.jpg

The past eight years have been disastrous for America: the failed (or — if you are an optimist — failing) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the parallel rise in regional influence of Iran; the unconstitutional domestic spying and other violations of civil liberties; the appointment of radical right-wingers to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court; the growing gap between the rich and the affluent and the rest of nation; the reckless economic policies that have lead to the current economic meltdown; and an epidemic of Congressional corruption among the Republicans and their corporate lobbying cronies.

It is impossible to emphasize the importance of redirecting America’s sorry course. The nation has lost its way.

For these reasons — and for others that are also vitally important — the Phoenix endorses Barack Obama for President and Joe Biden for Vice President.

The idea of John McCain and Sarah Palin in those jobs is simply too frightening to contemplate. The McCain and Palin candidacies are rooted in a Republican vision of America that is narrow, intolerant, and divisive. They promise to lead America deeper into a bankrupt past.

The challenges facing the next President will be the greatest in recent memory: to restore the nation’s international standing while simultaneously rebuilding a shell-shocked economy. So great is the job ahead that it is difficult not to imagine that a President Obama at times might falter. But his energy, eloquence, intelligence, and steady temperament make him the candidate best equipped to face the future.

Reed for Senate
US Senator Jack Reed is a diligent and thoughtful legislator whose influence is steadily on the rise in Washington. His ability to get the big decisions right is demonstrated by his vote against the authorization of the war in Iraq.

Reed is the latest in a string of Rhode Islanders — John O. Pastore, John Chafee, and Claiborne Pell — to distinguish themselves in the Senate, offering a sharp contrast to the shady dealings that sometimes take place in the Ocean State. Thanks to his background as an Army ranger, Reed offers an informed voice on national security issues, and he can be expected to have the ear of the president should Obama win next week’s election.

Challenger Robert Tingle, a Foxwoods pit boss who touts himself as a Reagan Republican, is among the handful of critics who fault Reed for his campaign war chest (which is unremarkable by Senate standards) and for some of his contributions from the banking and finance industry (which, largely, are a reflection of how Washington operates).

We take Senator Reed at his word when he says he decides issues based on their merits. There are good reasons why public opinion polls routinely show him to be the most popular elected official in Rhode Island, and we offer Reed our endorsement without reservation.

Kennedy and Langevin for US House
Jonathan Scott and Mark Zaccaria deserve credit for offering Republican alternatives, respectively, to US Representatives Patrick J. Kennedy and James R. Langevin.

Yet Scott and Zaccaria lack the experience necessary to win our support. Kennedy, who is steadily accruing seniority in the House, scored a recent victory with the passage of the mental health parity measure that he co-sponsored. Langevin is a knowledgeable legislator and has done a solid job in representing his district.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: He’s not like us, Travels with Sarah, RI ’08: Prelude to 2010, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Frank Ferri,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
28 Comments / Add Comment

TheCog

I'm finding the reasoning behind your choice of "no" on question 3 to be perplexing.  It's declining in popularity, so it may die a natural death?  It "may"?  When exactly?  Is it worth it to take that gamble that the tracks may close on their own?  How many more dogs will suffer & die in that time?  (not to mention the fact that if the state approves slots to be placed at tracks they will no longer be a dying industry)

The fact that this is a declining industry is all the more reason to vote yes on 3.  The track owners realize it.  The public realizes it.  Lawmakers realize it.  A lot of the workers are part time.  And quite frankly, should we be that upset that a few people might lose some income if they are participating in a cruel and unethical profession? 

The "efforts to clean up this form of wagering" have NOT been notable, actually.  Just yesterday in a newspaper ad, the tracks claimed to have a 100% dog adoption rate, when in fact state records show the rate is 14%.  Dogs spend 20 or more hours a day in stacked metal crates barely big enough to stand up or even turn around in (even so many are too large to).  Since 2002, over 800 dogs have been injured, many seriously.  80% of those are broken legs.  They are fed class 4-D meat from sick, diseased and downer cows, labeled unfit for human consumption. 

 I'm sad that the Phoenix, for claiming to be such a progressive publication, won't take a stand on this issue.

Posted: October 30 2008 at 10:59 AM

Mactheart

I am stunned that the Phoenix is suggesting a no vote on question 3. 

 If you're no friend of dog racing, then VOTE YES ON QUESTION 3. 

 I am so disappointed in my favorite publication.

Posted: October 30 2008 at 12:24 PM

lovesdogs77

I am shocked that The Pheonix is recommending a a no vote on Question 3!  I thought that the Pheonix looked at the facts, unlike the Globe and the Herald!  Apparently I was very wrong!   Would you leave your dog in a rusty cage too small for your dog to stand up and turn around?  If you are no friend to greyhound racing, why would you recommend perpetuating this cruely?

Posted: October 30 2008 at 4:30 PM

GreenQueen11

I am very disappointed that the Phoenix would recommend a "no" vote on 3.  The dogs are confined for 20 hours/day on average to very small cages and there have been over 800 injuries in the past few years.  Does a "down" economy justify cruelty?  I thought we were better than that as a society.

Posted: October 30 2008 at 8:11 PM

jblippman

I cannot believe the Phoenix would not come out firmly on the side of animal welfare.  The only people who have voiced support for the tracks' side are the people who will need to find new jobs.  Loss of jobs is no more a reason to support the dog racing industry than it is reason to support the tobacco industry or any other industry whose time has passed.  Your readership is comprised of rational, humane and educated people whoknow this.  Start reflecting that in your opinions or plan to lose readers.

Posted: October 30 2008 at 8:13 PM

VoteYeson3

Even with regulation, the greyhounds will still break bones and injure themselves while racing.  With respect to the jobs lost, this is a phase-out, and people would have ample time to look for another job.  The status of our economy right now does not excuse the inhumane treatment of the greyhounds. 

Posted: October 30 2008 at 8:33 PM

pamela1130

I am disappointed that such a "progressive" newspaper as yours would recommend voting no on question three.  Eleven states have greyhound racing and their economies are not booming because of greyhound racing.  Cruelty to animals is not acceptable because people will lose their jobs.  Dogs are the animals that we revere most in our society and all dogs deserve to be treated  humanely.  Vote YES on question #3.     

Posted: October 30 2008 at 8:45 PM

Steve103

A "no" vote on 3 condones the miserable conditions that these  DOGS are bred into (slavery), and must endure, and are subjected to til they no longer generate money for the gamblers, the tracks, and the "trainers".   A "no" vote says that it's OK that over 800 dogs have SUFFERED serious injuries in the past 6 years so that a few ctiizens of our state can go bet some money and maybe make a few bucks. (or as Mr. O'Donnell said on 96.9 today - no big deal)  The trainers/tracks/track vets do not take care of the injuries as they claim - they wrap the leg and then see if a shelter will take the dog and let the shelter pay for the treatment.  (if no shelter will take the dogs, they're euthanized)  "Broken dogs" that do make it to a shelters often arrive with their broken bones poking out of their legs.  Some care the trainers provide.  All this so less than 700 people have common part-time and full-time jobs?  All this so gamblers can go sit in the stands and bet on the backs and lives of dogs???????  Let's see the pro-racers take a month of this type of life.  The people with these jobs that will be phased out can and will find equivalent jobs in the broader world, outside of the track.  Tellers, parking lot attendants - wake up people - these jobs are not exclusive to dog tracks.  Dogs suffering broken legs, cardiac arrest, "dead at finish line", crushed skulls - is it really worth it?  Of course not.  VOTE YES ON 3

Posted: October 30 2008 at 9:33 PM

Jen Reardon

Congratulations on abandoning your journalistic integrity to become the mouthpiece of the tracks' lies and misrepresentations.  A multi-million dollar bailout in 2002 failed.  Raynham's revenue declined 37% between 2002-2007.  Wonderland's revenue declined 65% between 2002-2007.  Wonderland also has the audacity to owe $800,000 in back taxes.  Phoenix, when the track owners come knocking on Beacon Hill's door for another handout, we should expect YOU to pick up the tab, not law-abiding taxpayers.  All for a couple of bucks made on the backs of dogs?

Posted: October 30 2008 at 10:45 PM

Jay Kirkus

Phoenix, you disappoint.  What you fail to see but the voters will realize on November 4th is that the people of Massachusetts do not want their economy based on cruelty to dogs.  One kennel owner at the track has stated that a dog breaking its leg in a race "...is no big deal."  Why would the Phoenix support an industry that results in dog injuries on average every 3-4 days?  Change your opinion and VOTE YES on 3.

Posted: October 31 2008 at 11:37 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | next >
HTML Prohibited
Add Comment

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group