Sunday, October 24
Is the Dispatch even thinking?
This is my response to The Dispatch's endorsement of Bush. I consider Columbus to my home town (close enough anyway), and I find this endorsement rather frightening, but not unexpected either. I have seen it suggested that the editorial board was overruled by the Wolfe family (who owns the Dispatch, as well as WBNS-TV and WBNS Radio).
For president
Despite missteps, Bush is better able to steer nation through difficulties ahead
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Like millions of American voters, The Dispatch is less than enthused about the choices in next week’s presidential election. Neither President Bush nor Sen. John Kerry has built a record that leads to a clear-cut decision.
With the current situation of compaigning, if a newspaper is less than enthused, then what that does that mean for the electorate?
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.
And what has the Dispatch criticized about John Kerry in the past months? Years? Did you even criticize him when he became a war protester 30 odd years ago? Do you blame the whole malaise of the 70's and 80's on him and his ilk, as a friend of mine seems to relate?
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.
Indeed, the case now seems to be pretty much a fabrication of what the current administration wanted us to believe. So, you are endorsing the liar?
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.
Flip flops indeed! 20 years you say? How many times has the Dispatch flip-flopped on certain issues in that same time period? President Bush has his own flip-flops, that the Dispatch has covered. Are those shifting positions that much different from President Bush, despite being elected as a "uniter" has time and time again shown to be a divider to suit his own 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.
You offer nothing above to indicate who would be the better choice.
The most crucial challenge facing the next president is winning the peace in Iraq. Although the rationale for the Iraq war has been proved wrong, no one should underestimate the stakes now. The United States must see the job through to the end.
Winning the war, not neccessarily the peace in Iraq will be a challenge. Unfortunately, Bush refuses to acknowledge any kind of mistakes and continues on a path that is not going particularly well. Winning a war that should not have been started, let alone without the tools neccessary to protect our troops and straining our troops and resources and still not getting things in Iraq under control enough to put a mark under the Win column.
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.
The first sentence, I have trouble believing. The rest is certainly true. But again, there is nothing about President Bush that indicates he will guarantee that there will be victory over his opponent.
Like it or not, America must stand firm.
Must stand firm for what?
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.
So you still are endorsing the liar? Kerry has a chance to get multilateralism going. It may not be much, but it's better than the zero chance that President Bush has.
During the presidential campaign, Kerry has revised his stance on Iraq almost as frequently as there have been shifts in opinion polls. He appears to lack solid convictions on how to proceed.
But you also claim that Kerry has not provided a vision. I find this confusing. He has none, or is he shifting? Or has everything he has been able to say about this just drowned out in the rhetoric of the opposing party?
His vow to repair the damage done by Bush to the nation’s alliances sounds good, but his longstanding ambivalence about deploying American power raises questions about his willingness to defy world opinion if and when that might become necessary in pursuit of U.S. national security. If Bush has been too willing to deploy that power on slim pretexts, Kerry may be too hesitant to unleash it even when justified.
Basing Kerry's behavior on Bush's is pretty ridiculous at this point. There should always be questioning of deploying American power, I don't care what the circumstances. And slim pretexts? Again, you still want to endorse the liar?
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.
This election should not be about how the rest of the world views the outcome of the election. The rest of the world does not vote in our elections. It is about choosing the best candidate that bests represents for the voter! Yet your endorsed candidate already fails this criterion in your editorial.
On domestic issues, voters are confronted with an avowed conservative who spends like a liberal, and a confirmed liberal who promises the fiscal constraint of a conservative.
We already have one liar. We might find out that the opponent is actually not a liar. It would be nice for once. But you continue to endorse the liar.
Bush has vastly expanded the reach of the federal government with the Medicare drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act. The first will add more than $500 billion to the nation’s debt over the next decade. The NCLB, despite its worthy goals, is a vast federal encroachment into education, traditionally a preserve of state and local government. This act unnecessarily pre-empted state initiatives to bring more accountability to elementary and secondary education.
And you continue to endorse this candidate? This candidate best represents your views?
At the same time he has increased the government’s obligations, Bush has slashed taxes, resulting in the highest budget deficits in U.S. history.
And these are values that the editorial staff of the Dispatch support?
This is not a conservative record.
Agreed.
Kerry, whose voting record marks him as one of the most liberal senators in the nation, is painting himself as a fiscal conservative. He promises to cut the deficit in half and to find a way to pay for any new spending that he proposes.
Most liberal? Is the Dispatch swallowing whole the entire Bush rhetoric without a grain of salt?
But once in office, with all the expectations of his party and with liberal special interests to appease and reward, would Kerry stick to those promises? This seems unlikely. As Bush and other presidents have demonstrated, excuses for expanding government on credit always are at hand.
I do not see either of the houses of Congress switching parties, which means that whatever Senator Kerry would want if he were elected, he would be going through two hostile paths to get anything done. Versus the what has been going on with the Republicans controlling both Congress and the Presidency. Besides, wasn't it Democratic President Clinton that lead us to budget surpluses?
Without a track record as a disciplined fiscal steward or as a believer in limited government, Kerry’s promises are suspect.
Bush's track record is known. Kerry's may be suspect, but at worst they are the same.
The next president will appoint many federal judges, and perhaps three or four U.S. Supreme Court justices. The impact on the judiciary will be lasting. The Dispatch believes Bush’s appointments would more likely respect the principles of judicial restraint and separation of powers.
It's obvious that President Bush will be out to reverse Roe V. Wade, and that will become the only testing point for appointments. Everything else will be out the window. I don't believe Bush's choices will be any better than Kerry's.
One other factor gives Bush an edge. In a second term, relieved of concern about re-election, presidents look to their legacy. This is when they feel free to take chances and expend political capital. There is no bigger problem facing the nation long term than senior entitlements. Without significant reform, Social Security and Medicare are headed for fiscal collapse under the press of millions of retiring baby boomers.
We only have to look at what happened with Clinton's legacy. Social Security will not be a problem for half a century by the latest forecasts. Is this such an institution that needs to be "saved"? Unintended consequences (and maybe intended consequences) need to be weighed. Social Security will not be crashing around us in 4 years, maybe 40. Let's make sure we are actually helping something, and not damaging it, or creating incredible mistakes in the years ahead. And if the new Medicare drug bill is any indication, it won't be made for better either.
Kerry, who knows touching these programs is political suicide, has ruled out any change in how they currently operate. But with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, they are unsustainable as they currently operate. Electing Kerry would simply delay action for four more years.
What is the damn rush on Social Security?
Bush has every reason to take on precisely this sort of challenge, especially if he hopes to ensure that history remembers him for something other than the Iraq mess.
And if he does, it hopefully comes out better than the Iraq mess. You call this a good track record?
If Bush wins and Republicans retain control of Congress, the stars finally may be aligned in a way that allows the nation to confront the entitlement goliath.
You may think that is a good wish on your part. It may also burn the Republicans, the conservatists, and the neoconservatists to ash.
If he is elected, Bush should make good on his pledge to reduce the deficit by half. Better yet, he should eliminate it. The president refuses to acknowledge mistakes, and that is unlikely to change in a second term. But he still should correct them.
The first thing that has to happen for change to happen is to recognize that change has to happen. This president refuses to, so how can anybody expect this to happen?
He should put enough troops and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done. He should ask the American people to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that, even if that means paying more taxes.
Just throwing money at Iraq and Afghanistan is not going to help. The resources needed are more than just money, such as able trained bodies with the right equipment to do the work that is needed to be done. Is this a tacit endorsement of a draft on the Dispatch's part?
Since Sept. 11, Americans have been ready and willing to sacrifice to avenge the attacks and prevent future ones. Bush shouldn’t hesitate any longer: Enlist them in the fight. That might be one way to heal the deep division that now afflicts the country.
American's have already been sacrificing liberties since Sept. 11. The war in Iraq being about terrorism is a lie. Why would Americans then be ready and willing to sacrifice for this war?
After all, four years ago, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Perhaps more than any other, he should make good on that promise.
Why does the Dispatch believe that he will make good on that promise? Nothing points to that in the past 4 years. This is just wishful thinking. Relevant Link Permanent link posted by bytehead @ 10/24/2004 02:52:00 PM
0 comments
Links to this post
