Forums dot lukpac.org

From my hometown newspaper.

Journal Times endorsement -- Kerry is a better choice to lead nation forward
By Journal Times staff

Despite his vows to be a "uniter, not a divider" four years ago, President George W. Bush has repeatly pushed an agenda that has left the nation more splintered than at any time in recent memory.

The hallmark of his administration has not been the "compassionate conservativism" that he espoused back then, but a drumbeat of intransigence and unwillingness to hear other voices and concerns that has pushed his approval ratings to one of the lowest points in his tenure - this two weeks before the November elections.

The failings have come on both foreign and domestic fronts.

While the president was not to blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and that tragic loss of life, he is responsible for squandering the great sense of national unity that followed.

While there was justification and international cooperation to track down al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan, the president and his administration quickly turned to Iraq as a target based on "evidence" of the threat of weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found and hints of ties to al-Qaida that were flimsy at best.

By invading Iraq without sufficient proof and by adopting a stance of pre-emptive unilateral action, Bush has shredded international alliances and made it more difficult to forge the coalitions that are needed to fight world terrorism.

On domestic issues Bush has shown the same intransigent style that he has abroad on issues ranging from the environment to the economy, from taxes to health care and stem cell research. Under his watch and that of Vice President Dick Cheney, the adminstration's energy policies were drawn up in closet concert with oil and gas producers and others in the energy industry. Using warm and fuzzy names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" the administration has begun draining the pool of environmental protections across the country.

Under his watch the United States has seen a steady erosion of jobs, dramatic escalation in health care costs and a rising threat to the future of Social Security.

When he entered office, the United States budget was actually running a surplus - enough that Bush was able to push through a $1 trillion tax cut when he first took office. But when the economy slowed and 9/11 soured it even further, Bush's response was the same - more tax cuts, even though the country was also footing the bill for war with Iraq. But the big dollars in those tax cuts were not aimed at the middle class which has been bearing the weight of unemployment and higher health care costs - the bulk of those cuts were skewed to businesses and those in upper income levels.

President Bush favors the line, "It's a tough job." That could apply as well to the presidency - and Bush has occupied the Oval Office in trying times - but it is clear that he is not up to the challenge. His legacy in four years in office is one of massive national debt, tattered foreign relations, environmental degradation, job losses, skyrocketing health care costs and an economically pinched middle class.

We cannot recommend his re-election.

In all honesty, we were not overly impressed initially with Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, when he was on the campaign trail.

But after watching his steady performance in the trio of debates and listening to his pledges to rein in the national debt, work to rebuild international alliances, roll back some of the recent tax cuts and work toward healthcare reform, we believe he will be able to make some headway in getting those jobs done.

The most impressive qualities that Kerry would bring to the job are his studied thoughtfulness and pragmatism. His history in Congress has shown an ability to compromise on issues and to consider other points of view. That has been sorely lacking in the Bush administration and is the root cause of some of its biggest failings.

The Journal Times recommends John Kerry for president of the United States.

The Journal Times is in good company. According to Editor & Publisher, Kerry is leading Bush 122-69 in newspaper endorsements.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000683265

We've got two major papers here in Madison, both owned by Capital Newspapers. The Wisconsin State Journal is the morning paper, is pretty pro-business, and is usually fairly centrist in endorsements. They backed Russ Feingold for Senate this year. Yet somehow they thought it was a good idea to back Bush. I'm a bit mystified myself.

The other paper in town is The Capital Times. Definitely the liberal paper in an already liberal town. I haven't seen an endorsement yet, but there's no doubt it will go to Kerry.

Perhaps Mr. Hunte's take on the media isn't so far off. Can you say "let's make things seem even"?

Bush, Kerry get support from swing-state newspapers


(CNN) -- Newspapers in several states that could win or lose the election for either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry endorsed the candidates on Sunday, some of them providing surprises.

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch gave Bush the nod. "A victory for Bush will signal to the world and terrorists that the United States is committed to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan," the paper's editors wrote. "A Kerry victory will send an ambiguous signal that may raise doubts about American staying power."

The Dispatch, which traditionally supports the Republican ticket, said it was "less than enthused" about the choice between Bush and Kerry, but concluded that Bush "would stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead."

The paper also slammed the invasion of Iraq, which it "strongly opposed."

On Saturday, the president also received backing from The Cincinnati (Ohio) Post.

Bush and Kerry are virtually tied in polls of likely voters in Ohio, which has 20 electoral votes and is seen as a possible key to any victory in the presidential race. (Showdown state Ohio) (CNN.com's Poll Tracker)

In other battleground states, Kerry picked up endorsements on Sunday from The Des Moines Register in Iowa, and surprisingly Florida's Orlando Sentinel, which had backed Bush in 2000.

Bush "has disappointed us on almost all counts," the Sentinel editors wrote. Florida's 27 electoral votes are among the nation's most valuable in the presidential race. (Showdown state Florida)

The Orlando paper's switch mirrored The Chicago Sun-Times, which threw its support to Kerry -- four years after the Illinois paper backed Bush. "The course America is on feels wrong," the paper said, praising Kerry's "thirst for information, his ability to judge situations on their merits."

The Sun-Times editors said, "we became concerned by the secrecy of [Bush's] subordinates such as Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft, coupled with an unnecessary disregard for some of our most cherished civil liberties."

Last week, the Chicago Tribune announced it was backing Bush.

Newspapers in other swing states -- Colorado and Pennsylvania -- also backed Bush this weekend.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, this country accepted a great challenge -- to inflict justice on terrorists who would attack us and to take every reasonable step to protect our homeland," editors of The Denver Post wrote. "The task has been pursued with dogged resolution, and we think President Bush is best suited to continue the fight." (Showdown state Colorado)

The Express-Times, of Easton, Pennsylvania, said it endorsed Bush because, "In a new American experience in which our vulnerabilities are on constant display, our nation's security is paramount. Kerry's strategy just doesn't measure up. Now is not the time to back away from the fight. Or the president." (Showdown state Pennsylvania)

Kerry was endorsed Sunday by one the nation's most prominent papers, The Washington Post, which praised his "resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness." The Post, the nation's fifth largest newspaper, condemned Bush's "cocksureness."

In the battleground state of Wisconsin, both Kerry and Bush won newspaper endorsements.

Oshkosh Northwestern, Oshkosh, Wisconsin., endorsed Bush on Friday: "Bush may have room for improvement, but the sitting president is always an easy target. What he has going for him is four years of a track record of acting as he promised he would. It's rare in a politician. But it's crucial for a president."

Bush also got a thumbs up from The Gazette of Janesville, Wisconsin.

Kerry won backing from The Journal Times of Racine, Wisconsin, and the Wausau Daily Herald, which offered a less-than-glowing endorsement.

"In many cases we've been disappointed by Kerry's lack of specifics or his promises to cure all our ills by repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy," the paper's editors wrote. "We've weighed those disappointments against our dismay over Bush's failings." (Showdown state Wisconsin)

I've heard that the Columbus Bush endorsement was a similar deal to the Cleveland situation, with the publisher overriding the editors' choice of Kerry.

Ryan

Rspaight wrote:I've heard that the Columbus Bush endorsement was a similar deal to the Cleveland situation, with the publisher overriding the editors' choice of Kerry.

Here's a sad tale of the woeful state of the newspaper industry.

I work for a daily newspaper and we were told in a manager's meeting a few weeks back that it is in our best interest not to drive around with bumper stickers supporting either candidate. It was also "suggested" that we not participate in any public events that could be construed as giving support to one side or the other. Apparently, we're expected to remain "objective" even in our personal lives.

I've never been more tempted to deface my car with a bumper sticker.

That story rings a bell for some reason. It seems to me that happened at the State Journal too.

I think I heard something on NPR along those lines, too, where a couple of investigative reporters for some newspaper (might have been the State Journal) got in trouble for going to the Vote For Change concert.

They came for the concertgoers, and I did nothing because I didn't like Springsteen...

Ryan

Ah, here it is. St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Two reporters suspended for attending 'Vote for Change'

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Two Minnesota newspaper reporters who went to a high profile rock-n-roll concert are finding themselves temporarily out of work because of the show.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press has suspended two investigative reporters who attended a "Vote for Change" concert featuring Bruce Springsteen, R-E-M and others two weeks ago.

The tour wound its way through several battleground states and openly worked to oust George Bush and help Democratic candidates.

The newspaper says it wrote a memo before the concert warning staffers that the paper's ethics policies ban attendance at political activities including concerts that are fundraisers.

The journalists say the warning didn't mention their division, investigative reporting, specifically.

The reporters' union is contesting the unpaid suspensions. Even so, at least one of the suspended reporters says the concert was "fabulous."

So much for the "free press," eh?

They're more afraid of *appearing* biased than they of *being* biased.

Just like the administration, which is more afraid of *appearing* wrong than of *being* wrong.

Ryan

As expected, the Capital Times endorsed Kerry:

Editorial: Kerry for president

An editorial
October 28, 2004

America will survive Tuesday's presidential election, no matter who wins. This is a strong, good country with the wherewithal to withstand even the failures of our executives.

But an American election should not be about merely muddling through. Rather, it should be about charting the course of a nation that has a far grander capacity for greatness than is acknowledged by the gray, soulless men who call themselves leaders but are, in truth, merely managers of a land diminished by their lack of vision. An American election should be about hope, and possibility, and the fulfilling of the promise made by Jefferson and kept by Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy that this experiment would forever be the "signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

If it is our destiny in this election season to renew the promise of America, then the choice is absolutely and unequivocally clear. On Tuesday, we must elect John Kerry as the 44th president of these United States.

It would be comic, at this point, to suggest that Kerry needs an introduction to the American people. Despite the many cruel and dishonest assaults on his record and his character, the Democratic nominee is a known entity. He has fought for our nation in war, and he has fought to guide it away from war. He has enforced our laws, as a prosecutor. He has made our laws, as a senator. He has met the challenge of seeking the presidency, in the hard-fought primaries of his own party, in the bitter and unforgiving struggle of a summer and fall when a too-easily spun media focused more on the ancient history of 1969 and 1971 than on the monumental demands of 2004 and 2005, and he has prevailed in three debates that renewed his candidacy and redefined this contest.

John Kerry can win the presidency. There is no question of that now, and?Wisconsin could well tip the?balance?of a closely divided electoral college in his favor. And that will only happen if the voters of this state believe - as we did in Civil War times, at the dawn of the Progressive era and in the spring of 1960 when we sent a young senator named John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the road to the White House - that, while America may lose her course, it is never more than one election away from renewal.

This can be the renewing election of our time.

And Kerry can be the renewing president.

It is easy to forget, after so bitter and dispiriting a campaign, what made Kerry so very appealing to so many American voters in the first place.

John Kerry has, repeatedly through a public career that now spans 35 years, been courageous enough to sacrifice the comforts of his class, his educational experience and his prominence to stand with those seeking to correct our country's course. It would be absurd to suggest now, at so critical a stage in this career, that he would be unwilling to do so again.

John Kerry is not a perfect candidate. But, unlike his prime opponent, he recognizes both his strengths and his weaknesses. This is essential for the renewal of the nation. America does not need a perfect president. Rather, America needs a wise and determined leader, who recognizes the necessity of engaging in the hard work of expanding access to health care, providing the funding that will give meaning to the words "no child left behind," reasserting our commitment to environmental protection, and preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

John Kerry has, to his immense credit, been willing to learn, to grow, to advance in his knowledge and his understanding of the complex issues facing the United States and the world. His opponents call this flip-flopping because they have chosen to settle into the easy certainty of their unyielding neoconservative ideology. It is this certainty of ideology - or "faction," as James Madison put it - that most divides and endangers America.

If the American people are the true descendents of Madison and the others who began this American experiment more than two centuries ago, they will reject the certainty that leads this country into unwise and unnecessary wars, and embrace the nuanced thinking that holds out the promise of peaceful resolution even for the most complex disputes. Kerry has, throughout his career, offered America that latter prospect, and he offers it now, at a time when this country must begin the difficult work of coming home to herself and her ideals.

Published: 7:41 AM 10/28/04

I didn't write this either. Really.

Endorsement: John Kerry for president
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Oct. 27, 2004

Both presidential candidates are decent men, undeserving of the demonization they’ve endured during this campaign.

That said, there is a clear choice in this election, and that would be John Kerry for president.

Kerry’s record - Vietnam combat vet to anti-war activist to effective U.S. senator - speaks of courage, patriotism and a balanced and thoughtful view of this country, its needs and its role in the world.

It is inescapable, however, that a presidential re-election contest is also a referendum on the incumbent.

Kerry, though not flawless, mostly measures up based on a reasoned look at his record. Regrettably, we find President Bush, though well-intentioned, severely deficient based on his.

Let’s not get mired in whether the president was deceitful or was himself misled on the matter of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He was wrong. The principle reason given for launching this war never deserved as much weight as given to it by this president and vice president.

No, we do not believe they lied. But they were wrong in starting the war for the reasons given and have been equally wrong in how they have waged it. Americans were not greeted as liberators. Iraq’s oil has not been substantively paying for the reconstruction. Insufficient numbers of U.S. troops, inadequately armored and equipped, were committed for reasons still not entirely credible.

To be sure, a tyrant is gone. But one misstep after another in that war has made the often-stated reason for being in Iraq - once the subject was changed from WMD - seem even more elusive: a democratic country that would transform a troubled region.

Both candidates would train Iraqis to defend themselves. Both would seek international help. They each aver to give the troops whatever it takes to protect themselves and Iraqis. But, of the two, Kerry seems better equipped to pull it off.

Again, it’s a matter of the Bush record.

The president was marvelous immediately following the 9-11 attack. He rallied the country and called citizens to action in a commitment against terrorism. He led a coalition into Afghanistan, the right war at the right time, to deny al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden their Taliban sanctuary.

And then he took that commitment against terrorism to wage a war against a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. He opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and then didn’t. He opposed a 9-11 commission and then didn’t. He said he was a uniter and we remain bitterly divided.

The charge that this country will be unsafe if Kerry is president is cruel and on shaky ground. It cynically depends on incomplete glimpses of his 19-year voting record. This is beneath the president, just as raising the specter that Bush will institute a military draft and cut Social Security benefits for the elderly is beneath Kerry.

On the economic and social front, Kerry has made health care reform a major plank. While we have doubts about his ability to pay for it, we know the president’s solutions are iffy Band-Aids. Among them a continuing overconfidence in the free market to achieve access for users, tort reform, health savings accounts and allowing businesses to group together for better insurance rates. These are not far-reaching enough.

Kerry’s much bolder health care proposal is not, as Bush bills it, a government plan. Most people would stay in their private health insurance.

Kerry’s plan would have the federal government cover catastrophic health care costs for businesses and workers in excess of $75,000, which could lead to lower premiums for employers and employees both. Kerry would also lower health care costs by allowing the importation of less expensive drugs from Canada and other nations and require the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The federal government is now prohibited from doing either under the Medicare reform act that Bush supported, and signed into law, in 2003.

The Kerry plan would extend insurance to 27.3 million Americans who currently have no insurance while the Bush plan would extend insurance to only about 6.7 million additional Americans, according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

On jobs, it now appears that Bush will indeed be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over net losses. A president’s effect on economic cycles can be easily overstated. Yet Bush has been touting his tax cuts as the key to creating jobs.

Most experts are not crediting his tax cuts for what job gains we’ve made. They are, however, crediting them for helping turn a hefty surplus into a deep budget deficit.

Kerry has his flaws. Given what we know now, it’s clear he shouldn’t have voted for the war resolution in October 2002. Back then, this Editorial Board wrote, “Bush said . . . that the military option was his last choice, not his first. It’s important that members of Congress hold the president to those words and include language in their war-powers resolution that authorizes force only if all diplomatic measures have been exhausted.” Kerry, in fact, is still holding the president accountable on his pledge to go to war only as a last resort.

But like Bush, Kerry is also dodging the big questions about Social Security and the budget deficit.

In the senator, however, we see a reasoned pragmatist with enough intellectual curiosity to lead him to prudent, decisive and well-thought-out action.

Installing someone during war who has never been commander in chief is too risky, the president’s campaign is trying to scare you into believing. But voters can weigh that against what should now be a firm understanding of what they will get in a second Bush term. No risks there. There’s every danger of it being worse than the first.

The hatred directed against this president is largely undeserved. The caricatures and barbs hurled carelessly his way have been decidedly mean-spirited. Many will disagree, but we don’t believe that he has deliberately misled. He has good instincts on connecting with people and on hopes for elevating students through his No Child Left Behind program (chronically underfunded, unfortunately). We even believe that his faith-based initiative, though it has its faults, indicates a big heart. Faith that guides generously but doesn’t dictate to others can be a good thing.

In 2000, we lauded Bush for his ability as Texas governor to work in bipartisan fashion. We admired what seemed to be a tendency to make moderate judicial appointments. We’ve seen precious little of that in his first term as president.

This time around, there is just so much at stake.

There is an ever-evolving economy that must lift more boats, a health care crisis requiring bold solutions, Iran and North Korea posing global threats, an environment that needs more protection than has been given in this term and Supreme Court nominations that will touch just about every policy issue imaginable.

The president is a decent man, yes. On the whole, however, he has been so wrong about so much in such a short time that accountability must kick in at some point.

We’re at that point. John Kerry for president.

From the Oct. 28, 2004, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

So are you/did you go see Springsteen and Kerry in Madison today?

Ryan

No. Didn't want to ditch out of work.

I saw Gore when he was here in 2000, but that was later in the day, and I was in school anyway.