Have I ever mentioned how much I love the Brits? Charles Tyrwhitt is the patron saint of Galley Slaves and the realm of England is, taken as a whole, bloody awesome. So check out Colin Webber, a British bobby vacationing in New York, who took down a knife-wielding attacker with his bare hands yesterday. Good show.

Needed bumper-sticker for disaffected right-wingers: “Tony Blair is my president.”

So perhaps it isn’t surprising that most major newspapers’ editorials are endorsing John Kerry for president. And, yes, it is disappointing to see the Orlando Sentinel endorse a Democrat for the first time since 1964. But has anyone noticed the swapping of editorial endorsements between the two largest papers in the Windy City? While the Chicago Sun-Times is backing Kerry, the Chicago Tribune has announced it is supporting George W. Bush:

“There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons–apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency–to recommend either of these two good candidates.

“But for resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age–a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate–the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.”

Perhaps I’m a little too hard on Slate. Then again, there’s more ideological and political diversity of opinion here at Galley Slaves.

For instance, I don’t think George W. Bush is the anti-Christ or that he’s appointing theocrats to the federal bench. Or that he’s trying to repeal the constitutional protection for free speech or the rule of law. And it seems to me that his belief in democracy is actually quite strong. (One might, however, argue that he believes too much in power of democracy to cure all ills.)

But I will say this: Bush’s absolute demand of “loyalty” is at best unflattering and at worst repellent. The lastest example comes from a story in the October 18 Legal Times about the future of deputy attorney general James Comey.

Comey is the number two guy at Justice. He has a great background and is, in general, an all-around stand-up guy. Evidently, he’s off the list to succeed John Ashcroft because, as Vanessa Blum reports, he “has been insensitive to political concerns.”

“Some of [Comey’s] early staff picks were vetoed by the White House for not having strong Republican credentials,” Blum continues. A former Bush official explains, “The White House always wants to make sure the administration is staffed with people who have the president’s best interests at heart. Anyone who resists that political loyalty check is regarded with some suspicion. The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team.”

The former Bush official continues: “[Comey] has shown insufficient political savvy. The perception is that he has erred too much on the side of neutrality and independence.”

Lovely.

Back in 1999, when Nicole Kidman was junketeering for Eyes Wide Shut, she kept telling reporters that she’s really a very shy girl, who just happens to appear naked in a lot of high-profile movies. She is not–she said repeatedly–an exhibitionist. Right.

By the same token, lots of journalists have recently taken to public declarations of their voting intentions. Like Nicole Kidman, I’m sure this has nothing to do with exhibitionism.

Instead, as Jacob Weisberg helpfully explains at Slate, it’s all about fairness and “the distinction between opinion and bias.” I believe him!

That said, it’s worth taking a look at Slate‘s list of staff endorsements. You will be unsurprised to learn that John Kerry is going to carry the Slate offices 46 to 5. What might surprise you, however, are some of the fairly crazy explanations offered by Slaterns in defense of their endorsements:

* Phillip Carter: Bush “employ[s] lawyers to eviscerate the rule of law”

* Sara Dickerman: “I’d like to see the Social Security, due process, freedom of speech, and the right to choose when and if to have a family preserved for my newborn child”

* Mia Fineman: “I don’t want to see our government further colonized by the fundamentalist Christian right.”

* David Greenberg: “I’d vote for practically anyone instead of Bush, because I don’t think he really believes in democracy.”

* Jon Katz: Bush “seems to me to be mixing politics and religion, in this case talking to God rather than listening to advisers, foreign leaders, or voters.”

* Laura Kipnis: Bush “appoints theocrats and neo-segregationists to the federal bench”

* Dahlia Lithwick: Bush has “lost sight of the fact that what makes Americans both strong and free is the rule of law”

* Charlie Powell: “Bush and Co. stole the 2000 election.”

* Dana Stevens: Bush “and his cabal of gnarled trolls have taken our great country (not to mention all of the Middle East) down a path that it’s possible no election will ever be able to fix.”

* Robert Wright: “[Kerry’s] a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he’s not the anti-Christ.”

Is this stuff nuts? You betcha. But here, once again, is Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, explaining “the kind of journalism Slate practices”: “When you advance a hypothesis, you must test it against reality. When you make a political argument, you must take seriously the significant arguments on the other side.”

Yeah, that’s the ticket. It’s not like they just want attention or anything.

Is Christopher Hitchens endorsing Kerry or Bush? He reports, you decide.

I want to take this opportunity to laud the clear thinking and obvious good judgment of Soxblog, who knew, as I did, that these Red Stockings were destined for greatness.

JFD, I’ll never question you again.

Reader J.B. writes in with a suggestion for those interested in learning more about minority voting patterns. He recommends Milton Friedman’s Encounter essay on the subject, which can also be found in The Essence of Friedman. Fine work.

Any more suggestions from the group?

Reader J.B. writes in with a suggestion for those interested in learning more about minority voting patterns. He recommends Milton Friedman’s Encounter essay on the subject, which can also be found in The Essence of Friedman. Fine work.

Any other suggestions?