My local newspaper, The Columbus(Ohio) Dispatch, printed their endorsement for President this morning (October 24). They picked George Bush for another term in office. The Dispatch’s qualified endorsement makes it clear that Bush should lose his job.
To quote the paper:
Since President Bush took office, this newspaper repeatedly has criticized his administration’s borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, which have resulted in massive deficits that weaken America.
The Dispatch also strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, contending the case had not been made that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or posed an imminent threat to this nation.
On the other hand, neither Kerry’s 20-year Senate record nor his shifting positions during the presidential campaign inspire confidence that he would provide the strong, resolute leadership America desperately needs.
Confronted with these disappointments and this choice, The Dispatch believes a second-term George W. Bush would stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead.
The Dispatch feels that because Bush is the incumbent he should get another term even though they don’t like him. In fact they claim that although Bush has provided ample return to Republican special interests and run up a huge budget deficit, they are more worried that Sen. Kerry’s “liberal” special interests will get more of the special treatment in Kerry’s first term.
At least if the “liberal” special interests are getting their share it isn’t hurting more people then the exporting jobs and illogical tax cuts that Bush has championed. The Dispatch is holding out hope that a Bush second term will deal with, in their words, senior entitlements (Social Security and Medicare). They feel that Kerry will refuse to touch them.
Basically voters should give Bush another chance in the dim hope he will “fix” social security and medicare. Bush has tried to “fix” Medicare by forcing Seniors to pay through the teeth for prescriptions in his new Prescription drug plan. Do we really need that kind of fixing.
They also mention that the next President will appoint many Federal judges and possibly 4 or 5 Supreme Court judges. They feel that Bush would be better in appointing judges who “would more likely respect the principles of judicial restraint and separation of powers.” I guess they would like the same kind of Supreme Court judges who defied democratic principles when it appointed Bush as President in 2000.
The Dispatch also looked at the status of the US in the world and the “war on terror”:
For far too long, dictators and terrorists have believed that Americans lack staying power. Friends and enemies of the United States are watching closely to see if the casualties and expense of the war will sap the nation’s will to plant democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. For America, there is no other choice but to succeed. Failure will sow more terrorism and tyranny.
Like it or not, America must stand firm.
Although the president, unfortunately, seems incapable of admitting obvious error, Kerry has not provided a vision of what he would do differently in Iraq. He agrees the United States must be successful in pacifying Iraq. He claims he could be more successful in getting other nations to help shoulder the burden, but that is not realistic.
How the rest of the world will view the outcome of the election also plays into the Dispatch’s decision. A victory for Bush will signal to the world and terrorists that the United States is committed to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Kerry victory will send an ambiguous signal that may raise doubts about American staying power.
There we have another reason to keep Bush. If Kerry is elected then the terrorists have won. Bull shit. The “terrorists” don’t care who the President is.
The President of the United States is accountable to the citizens of this country. That’s why we have an election every four years. Many Republicans are using the “war on terror” as a pretext to get Bush another term. Yes, he’s an idiot who mislead the country into an invasion of Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with “terrorism” but we are at “war”. You don’t change Presidents in war time.
Bush and his neo-con cronies ignored the culture and the history of the region. They actually believed that once Saddam was gone that flowers would bloom and our troops would be home by the end of 2003.
Bush has changed his justification for the invasion of Iraq many times, often after his previous justification was proven false, and The Dispatch is worried about Kerry’s change of view?? Like it or not, Kerry would have to continue Bush’s policies in the near term since we are so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least Kerry has admitted he has changed his view and that when he did he admitted his previous view was not correct. I trust and admire someone who makes a mistake and admits it far more than someone who doesn’t. After former President Clinton’s impeachment drama I thought the Republicans thought the same way.
Fighting terrorism strictly in a ground war will not work. You also have to use Intelligence and police assets around the world. That has beaten more terrorism efforts than any army in the field. Ignoring that fact is what gives us debacles like Vietnam.
The world community is fearful of the gun slinging Bush. He has no chips or favors to call in for help in the other aspects of fighting terrorism. He will be hard pressed to change their perception. Kerry will give the world fresh optimism and might help bring the Iraq situation a bit closer to a conclusion or at least take more of the heat off us. It is a matter of trust and Bush has none with me and most of the world.
We should judge our political leaders on their overall performance and The Dispatch’s qualified endorsement makes it clear that Bush should lose his job.
