|
Edited on Thu Oct-21-04 06:29 PM by Tesibria
I compiled these summaries in response to my "waivering towards Kerry" friend's queries. Since I already did the "work" - I'll post it here for others to use. HER EMAILOne thing that came through in your long e-mail this morning was your extreme dislike of Bush, and I was reminded of our discussion last week - that we see people's actions through our own "prisms." MY RESPONSE (in relevant part :)) … On “prisms” – it’s notable to recognize that 102 newspapers have issued their presidential endorsements. At current count, TWELVE newspapers (plus the American Conservative magazine) have “switched” party candidates this year, either (a) supporting Kerry over Bush or (b) refusing to endorse either candidate while refusing to endorse a Democrat (or in one case, Kerry specifically). While in the past, a few papers have flipped back and forth, this is the highest level of “switching” or failure to endorse in newspaper history. Ever. I’ve listed the ones I’ve found to date – with extracts from their endorsements re: why. Note – that ALL of these papers endorsed Bush in 2000. =================== COLORADO - Daily Camera (Boulder) - Kerry for president: It's time for a fresh start under new leadership. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1017s.html=================== “President Bush's early response to the terrorist attacks offered some basis for hope that he might lead the United States effectively through the ordeal of an unprecedented war. The wreckage of that hope is now strewn across the country and around the world. Bring on new leadership, a new vision and new hope. John Kerry is the clear choice in the 2004 election.” =================== CONNECTICUT - The Day (New London) - Endorsement: A Critical Election. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0926.html=================== “The Day has broken with tradition by endorsing John Kerry for president early in this election season. The newspaper does so because it believes this is a critical election requiring fresh, new leadership. The newspaper also believes George W. Bush's administration is flawed beyond repair in a second term. That is because the Bush policies undermine the framework of values that have properly guided the United States for decades and some for much of its history. The conduct of American foreign policy, for example, has rarely been so deficient. The Day urges its readers to vote for more moderate, balanced leadership for this nation.” =================== FLORIDA - Bradenton Herald - We recommend...President of the United States: John Kerry. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1017f.html=================== “When the Herald recommended the election of George W. Bush as president of the United States four years ago, we lauded his record in Texas as a consensus builder and expressed confidence in his ability to unite the country after four years of bitter partisanship. We liked his slogan, "A uniter, not a divider," and criticized opponent Al Gore's role as point man for Democrats' mean-spiritedness. How poorly we understood George W. Bush in 2000. We could not imagine the possibility that, just four years later, Bush would have done just what we feared of Gore - that the United States would barely be on speaking terms with some of its staunchest allies, and that America would be reviled around the world as a bullying, imperialist superpower. How far we have fallen from the bright fiscal forecast in 2000, with surpluses that offered the promise of debt paydown now replaced with a staggering $500 billion annual deficit and the national debt projected to exceed $9 trillion by 2010. As for Bush being a uniter, sadly, the nation is more polarized than it has been since the 1960s. Bush's administration is notable for its lack of transparency, its intolerance of dissent, its refusal to admit mistakes. Under Bush's leadership and Republican control, Congress has become a mean-spirited, partisan body where the vice president is praised for cursing an opposition senator on the Senate floor. The "compassionate conservative" president has people at outdoor rallies arrested for hoisting an opposition sign.” =================== FLORIDA - Tampa Tribune - Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election. Note: The Tampa Tribune, has endorsed the Republican candidate for president every time since 1952 (except for 1964, when it endorsed no one). http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html=================== “We find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and ``moderate man of mainstream convictions'' who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of ``nation building.'' We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush. As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution. But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world.” =================== ILLINOIS – Daily Herald - Our endorsement for president: John Kerry. http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/index.asp=================== (They’ve replaced with today’s editorial, so I can’t find again – but they endorsed Bush in 2000, and endorsed Kerry this year. See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000682038 =================== MICHIGAN - Muskegon Chronicle - We believe our nation has gone onto wrong track. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1017zc.html =================== Our editorial board, which consists of Publisher Gary Ostrom, Editor D. Gunnar Carlson and Editorial Page Editor David J. Kolb, was unanimous in its decision. We believe that our nation has gotten onto the wrong track under President Bush. We also believe a large measure of the pain felt by this country can be traced to the president's decision to invade Iraq under circumstances that we believe were wrong at best and misleading at worst.
===================
MISSOURI - Columbia Daily Tribune - Kerry for president: Bush finally loses it. Archived Endorsement. http://showmenews.com/2004/Oct/20041017Comm001.asp
===================
“For quite a few months I reluctantly believed uninterrupted leadership in the ongoing war on terror trumped all else in deciding who should be the next president of the United States. … However, day by day, the prospect of a Kerry presidency is more encouraging. It’s time to remove Bush from the White House, and Kerry emerges as a reasonable alternative. Earlier, I wrote I probably would hold my nose and vote for Bush. Today I breathe freely, quite at ease with removing this incumbent and installing another leader who deserves more confidence. … To do justice to this subject, one must spend time on both sides of the equation. I can go on indefinitely about the shortcomings of President Bush. He is an immoderate man who is quite willing to expand state power over the freedom of individuals. He will use this power, including a packing of the U.S. Supreme Court, to enforce his own view of a sectarian national morality. Despite our most fundamental national tradition, he does not believe in separation of religion from government. He is trying, with some success, to sell the American public on this dangerous idea. America will not thrive on this sort of moral tyranny. Whenever I hear politicians talk about "American values" or "Missouri values," I cringe. By whose definition? Often, they speak with religious overtones, implying that as officials they would govern accordingly. We do not, or should not, elect public officials to use government in this way, regardless of which prophets they follow. It is this general proposition that turns me so strongly against Bush, but there are plenty of others. Please refer to the editorial on the facing page from the New London Day, which presents a rather comprehensive list. “
===================
NEW MEXICO - Albuquerque Tribune - The Tribune recommends: President John Kerry. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1012.html
===================
“The United States has lost its way under President Bush, who too often has failed on both foreign and domestic fronts. Worse, he has been unable to unite a deeply divided nation. Bush, whom The Tribune endorsed in 2000, has offered simplistic slogans to complex problems, while Kerry sees complicated problems and offers the promise of appropriate solutions - complex or not. The reality is the world is not a simple place, seldom black or white, and Kerry knows that intuitively. He understands the gray, the nuance - and that easy-bake solutions like nuclear weapons, Navy carriers and conservative or liberal platitudes usually don't apply or work. This is critical in addressing big picture issues from Iraq to the economy. Kerry's style, attention to detail and global view will serve this nation better in the long run. The Tribune believes Kerry offers the best leadership for the vast majority of New Mexicans and other Americans, who identify with his vision of who we are, where we need to go and how best to get there.”
===================
NORTH CAROLINA - Winston-Salem Journal - Bush Has Gone Astray. Note: The Winston-Salem Journal, has backed Republicans since 1968. http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_ColumnistArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778575498&path=%21opinion&s=1037645509163.
===================
“Four years ago, we expressed reservations about many of Bush's stances on social and environmental issues. The primary reason we stated for endorsing Bush's candidacy despite these reservations was that we believed he would make a better commander-in-chief. Even though Bush had a shaky knowledge of foreign affairs, we believed that he was surrounding himself with an intelligent and experienced national-security team. If Bush gets good advice "and follows where it leads, the country will prosper," we said. Sadly, that has not happened. Today we find that our worries about a Bush presidency have been confirmed, but our optimism about his ability to lead has not. In the first days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and as he led the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush looked like a strong leader. The country was as united as it had been in a long time, and much of the world reached out with sympathy and offers to help defeat global terrorism. Three years later, the country is bitterly divided, and international support for the United States has largely evaporated. Bush has proved singularly unwilling to listen to advice other than that from a close inner circle. Either misinformed himself or misleading the American people about the necessity, he led the nation into an ill-timed and poorly planned war in Iraq. Now U.S. forces are bogged down in a difficult and expensive struggle that has already claimed more than 1,000 American lives, without a convincing plan for a satisfactory exit. The military is stretched thin, jeopardizing its effectiveness in the war on terrorism and its ability to deal with flare-ups in other world trouble spots. Yet Bush concedes no mistakes and promises four more years of the same. What looked like strong leadership at first now looks like dangerous stubbornness. It is no virtue to lead the nation resolutely in the wrong direction.
Meanwhile at home, Bush has abandoned fiscal responsibility, insisting on massive tax cuts even though the deficit is growing alarmingly and the costs of the war are soaring. It is not fair to blame this administration for all of the nation's economic woes, but it is fair to criticize the president for irresponsibly suggesting that Americans can have it all. He should have taken advantage of the unity after Sept. 11 to tell the American people that difficult times demand sacrifice. Similarly, he missed an opportunity to rally Americans around the goal of long-range, sustainable energy independence. His administration has been hostile to the environment, dismantling or circumventing many of the protections established over the last three decades and favoring big energy and timber companies at the expense of the environment and consumers. Bush has strayed from the traditional Republican position that government should intrude as little as possible into the lives of its citizens. He has promoted the idea that dissent is unpatriotic. He has recklessly blurred the line of separation of church and state that has served America well, backing policies that would impose the moral ideals of his brand of Christianity onto all Americans. And the next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court.
===================
OREGON - Oregonian (Portland) - Kerry for president: The Democrat could help rebuild the United States' standing in the world while restoring balance at home. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1010a.html
===================
“When George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001, he and his team moved quickly to push government hard to the right. This effort came even though Bush campaigned as a moderate and his narrow, contested election was anything but a mandate for sweeping change. … Bush's term in office has been marked by two major failures. One is his conduct of the war in Iraq. The other is his stewardship of the nation's fiscal health. Bush ran for president as a "compassionate conservative.” But true conservatives don't choose to go to war without proper planning or pursue fiscal policies leading to the deepest federal deficits in our nation's history. … We believe the White House's policy-makers approached the war with preconceived notions about success based on what the president later called "just guessing.” They brushed aside warnings and contrary opinions. They chose ideology over expertise. This arrogance led to a series of military, political, and diplomatic blunders and, we believe, resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many brave Americans. On fiscal policy, the White House and leaders in Congress have failed to fully acknowledge the threat posed by the giant deficits that the current recipe of tax cuts and profligate federal spending has brewed. …In almost every area, deliberate gaps between the administration's rhetoric and reality have become routine. Last year's misinformation about the cost of Medicare drug coverage is just one example.
===================
TEXAS - Bryan-College Station Eagle - The Eagle can make no recommendation for president. http://www.theeagle.com/opinions/editorials/101704president.php
===================
“Seven times since 1980 The Eagle has recommended George Bush, father or son, for high government office. We did so because each time we felt that particular Bush was the better candidate. George W. Bush is on the ballot again this year and, although we recommended him for president four years ago, we cannot do so again this year. … George W. Bush was such a good governor of Texas because he surrounded himself with truly outstanding people and listened to their advice. Once he became president, however, he surrounded himself with extremely conservative and hawkish men such as Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, President Bush chose to listen to them to the exclusion of more moderate voices, including Secretary of State Colin Powell. And now the president is unwilling to say that perhaps some things could have been — should have been — done differently. We all know the problems we face, even if President Bush is unwilling to acknowledge them.
===================
TEXAS - Wichita Falls Times-Record - Our Opinions: Endorsements. http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/lo_our_opinions/article/0,1891,TRN_5782_3259961,00.html
===================
“For president of the United States: We do not endorse either George W. Bush or John Kerry. After reviewing 13 key issues, from the economy to the conduct of the war in Iraq to the creation of jobs, we believe Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry don't differ enough to make a difference. Particularly on the war in Iraq, neither have a plan to get out, and both support continuing it. While Mr. Bush made a serious mistake building a monumental deficit, Mr. Kerry's promise to cut it in half is empty. Neither candidate has a realistic program to increase the educational levels of Latinos or African-Americans, the poor or the working class. We do believe that whoever is elected must be able to overcome these challenges:
1. Rebuild relationships with Europe;
2. Deal effectively with the nuclear weapons threats posed by Iran and North Korea;
3. Get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible;
4. Come up with a health-care plan that will, first, be a safety net for the poor and the working poor and senior citizens, and, second, protect the middle class from skyrocketing medical costs.
5. Actually lower the deficit.
===================
WASHINGTON - Seattle Times – Kerry for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0827b.html
===================
“Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda. The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not. … The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam. A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.
This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending. … Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
…
Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.
===================
American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
===================
The American Conservative has published its Endorsement Issue on the web, with the following statement: "Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. —The Editors" Seven editors then make the case for their candidate of choice.
• Editor Scott McConnell endorses Kerry, although he does so as an "ABBA" vote (Anybody But Bush Again).
• Three editors endorse third party candidates.
• Editor Kara Hopkins endorses "staying home": "By declining to be coerced we may yet salvage a scrap of liberty. We won’t be letting democracy down, for it has already disappointed us. Pace President Bush and his “forward strategy of freedom,” liberty was never government’s to give; the essential right to be left alone belongs to each citizen. This November, we can borrow a bit back by refusing to be counted by parties that don’t represent us. Silence is a profound expression, and enough unraised voices eventually turn even the most partisan heads."
• Only one editor (Patrick Buchanon) endorses Bush for president.
===================
Finally – for the record, one paper (out of the 102 that have endorsed a candidate so far) – who endorsed Gore in 2000, has endorsed Bush in 2004 – the Pennsylvania York Daily Herald. In a “split decision” – and with one editor filing a “dissent” – the York Daily Herald endorsement concluded “Mr. Kerry does edge out President Bush on many domestic issues. The president’s environmental policies are a disaster in the making, and we believe the senator would better protect the air and water. Mr. Kerry seems to have a better national health insurance plan. But sadly, the national security issue trumps all others at this point — and it just doesn’t make sense to switch horses in mid-stream, as the plain-spoken man from Texas might put it. That said, we hope President Bush will renew his commitment to compassionate conservatism on domestic issues. The war on terrorism should be no excuse to impose a hard-line conservative agenda on such a closely divided citizenry.”
Editorial: http://ydr.com/story/opinion/45473/
Dissent: http://ydr.com/story/reader/45474/
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
