Philadelphia Inquirer endorses...

[MTAtech]

From: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/9878518.htm

Kerry for President


The choice is vivid. The stakes are vast.

Our nation is threatened by jihad warriors who scoff at boundaries. It stumbles toward a fiscal ruin that will punish our children. The rules that protect our air, water and health are weaker than we know. When 45 million of our neighbors fall ill, they have no insurance card to hand to the doctor.

We boast of exporting liberty and rule of law, yet watch them erode at home. A hooded prisoner on a box has replaced a soaring lady with a lamp as the global icon of America's intentions. Our national discourse has grown peevish, choking on distortion and bile.

On Nov. 2, we can return to office the man who, since 2001, has spawned some of those ills and shown a shaky touch at healing the others.

Or we can go a new way, one alert to fresh global challenges yet rooted in the approaches that made the 1990s so productive. We can elect Democratic nominee John F. Kerry.

Dear fellow citizen, this is as important an election as any in which you've had a chance to vote.

The Inquirer's urgent, deeply felt recommendation: Cast that ballot on Nov. 2 for JOHN F. KERRY.

The case for Kerry has two parts. The first is the record of George W. Bush. The evidence is compelling, though tallied in sorrow: His was a presidency of high promise that lapsed into multiple disasters.

On his watch, useful surpluses have become a sea of red ink. The economic rebound he bought with tax cuts is mild, barely more than would have occurred in the natural cycle. Those slanted tax changes have left society more unequal, its safety net frayed. His team's habits of ignoring science and punishing dissent hamper the search for solutions.

His plan for a second term is not to repair those mistakes, but to expand and entrench them.

Most worrisome, his response to the stunning blows of 9/11 has gone fatefully awry. He has left Americans less safe than they could be and America less admired than it should be.

Those are strong words. You deserve to see them documented thoroughly.

That is why, beginning today, we present a 21-day editorial series. It will review the facts of the Bush record on an array of issues, from homeland security to Head Start, contrasting it with Kerry's ideas. The first appears below. Most days, on the facing page, a prominent supporter of President Bush will provide a contrasting view.

You deserve a fair and frank debate.

You also deserve a fair picture of the second half of the case for change: the record and views of John Kerry.

This, very few of you have gotten during a petty, dispiriting campaign. Some blame rests with the Democrat. He has not framed the debate with the force and clarity he must master to be an outstanding president.

More blame, though, rests with Bush. Awash in millions from the corporate donors to whom his White House caters so avidly, the President has spent more time ridiculing Kerry through distortions than presenting his own plans.

Bush backers cling to a tired, tiresome slogan of elections past: Kerry is a clueless liberal, out of touch with the American mainstream.

Here is what Kerry thinks, and what his record as a U.S. senator, lieutenant governor and prosecutor underscores:

John Kerry thinks government should pursue solutions to problems that haunt American lives, but must pay for each initiative as it goes - not stick the nation's children with the tab. Robert Rubin, the superb Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, praises Kerry as a senator who stood tall on the tough votes that tamed deficits.

He thinks work is better than welfare; he voted for welfare reform.

He thinks it's unacceptable that 45 million Americans lack health coverage; he has a smart plan to shrink that number dramatically.

He wants science to do all it can to speed cures for illnesses.

He knows that protection of America's air, land and water can't be left to the whims of corporations.

He doesn't just shrug when he sees American children slipping into poverty, or more paychecks losing buying power.

If those aren't mainstream American values, then God help America. But of course these are American values.If you're an undecided voter, consider this: As president, Kerry will have to work with a Congress where at least one chamber is Republican. Checks and balances, a prescription for moderation. A vote for Bush risks one-party rule, with Congress under the control of aggressive conservatives and reelection concerns no longer checking Bush's impulses.

You've heard - eight gazillion times - that John Kerry is a flip-flopper. No doubt, he's a man who relishes nuance. His penchant for thinking out loud is ill-suited to a sound-bite culture. He'll have to curb that, seeking a more disciplined clarity. But the flip-flop label rests mainly on one sound bite. All together now: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Muddy words, but a defensible vote. The Bush campaign's incessant mockery of it relies on voters' unfamiliarity with the workings of the Senate, where two or more versions of a bill often come up for votes. Kerry voted for a Democratic version of this Iraq appropriation, which would have rescinded tax cuts for the affluent to pay for body armor, etc., for the troops. The GOP version, which passed easily, added to the ever-growing load of debt we are leaving to our kids.
Let's deal with another pack of poisonous distortions: Vietnam.

Kerry served, showed courage, won medals, then raised an honorable, if hyperbolic, alarm about a misguided war. Case closed. Perhaps the Boston convention overdid the allusions to those facts, but that doesn't justify the baseless Swift-boat assaults of August.

Kerry doesn't talk much about his Senate record, a curious omission. That record isn't spectacular, but it is solid and qualifying. Names on bills are just one road to effectiveness. Kerry took the less glamorous path of investigation. He had major successes.

He was one of the first to spot and expose the scandal that came to be known as Iran-contra. He took the lead in unraveling the criminal deeds of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which financed drug cartels and terrorists. Finally, he worked well with John McCain and others to resolve the emotional issue of Vietnam MIAs.

Not flashy, not easy. Just important.

The BCCI probe showed Kerry spotting early on a key thread in the global web of terror.

Thwarting terrorism is a president's core job in these haunted times. Kerry's approach is more thorough than that of Bush, whose two main tools seem to be bombs and bombast. Bush's reckless missteps in Iraq have cost a painful toll in lives, credibility, alliances, Islamic anger and lost opportunities.

Kerry is right to press hard on: tracking down loose nuclear material in Russia and elsewhere; repairing alliances that can help spot terror cells and roll up financing networks; better securing our chemical and nuclear plants and ports.
It is absurd to claim that, had Kerry been president on that awful day in 2001, he would merely have shrugged and sent a strongly worded memo to the World Court. Any president would have done much of what Bush did in late 2001 - with less soaring eloquence perhaps. But few would have raced as he did into the deadly detour of Iraq.

John Kerry isn't perfect. He has things to learn. One thing Americans should have learned by now, though, is that the incumbent lacks the realism, judgment and ability to adjust to events that the United States needs in its commander in chief. In this perilous moment, the safer choice, the wiser choice, is John F. Kerry.

[John Prophet]

What President has really ever delivered what he promised?

Bush has words and promises
Kerry has words and promises

neither will do what he says...lol..they will only follow the global agenda of those who put them in power


the only difference might be that you get to hear some "different" lies, lol

what is presenting is just the long standing tradition of "glittering generalities"

"better security"
"welfare reform"

etc etc

same ol same ol


one problem we have is that there is no recourse against the presidents who blatantly do other than what they promise

doctors can be sued
lawyers can be sued

witnesses can go to jail for lying
businesses get fined for false advertising

but a candidate can say anything he wants with no repurcussions..the worst that can happen is he gets voted out, then he goes to the carlyle group and gets a 10-fold raise...ouch, that hurts

vote him out, vote in the next guy who is the same


Bush and Kerry are cousins, they both just part of the long elite bloodlines of Europe....Kerry is related to almost every royal family line in Europe's history.....he would have the "bluest" blood of any President in history

search it out and you will see that almost all of our presidents were related in one way or another....coming from tight knit circles that intermarry to preserve their elitist blood etc...hehe..you and I are on the outside looking in



they are both Skull and Bones elitist

Kerry will be no different than Bush.....they came up thru the same networks..they have sworn oaths to the same people


JP

[Droppyale]

Don't listen to JP... go Kerry...

[John Prophet]

lol....

the differences in the two are merely window dressing

one is 'good cop'.....one is 'bad cop'...

and things like this...

More blame, though, rests with Bush. Awash in millions from the corporate donors to whom his White House caters so avidly, the President has spent more time ridiculing Kerry through distortions than presenting his own plans.

uhh..I DARE anyone to say that the same isnt true of Kerry......seems it is more true of Kerry because no one really has a clue what moves he would make as Pres...he hasnt really presented any concrete plans

that is what I meant about trading "one set of lies" for "another"

with Bush you sort of know what you will get...with Kerry it is a guessing game but it will be similar on the big issues


things sort of move in slow cycles...for instance Clinton is hailed as one who brought prosperity...yet no one really talks about the cost of it as far as letting us fall behind in security....its sort of like "you can pay me now or pay me later"



either way..we have troops in ther middle east for good now...there is no exit strategy for Bush or Kerry...their talk of "bringing the boys home" is just that...talk

and Iraq isnt the last on the list

[BBA]

But...we all know the only reason Kerry wants to be president is so he can finally have his own house...he's tired of sponging off the ketchup.

[MTAtech]

But...we all know the only reason Kerry wants to be president is so he can finally have his own house...he's tired of sponging off the ketchup.

My grandmother used to say, “it is better to keep your mouth shut and risk people thinking you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

So far Kerry has:

The Atlanta Journal Constitution: 418,323
The Philadelphia Inquirer: 387.692
Detroit Free Press: 354,581
The Oregonian (Portland) (Endorsed Bush in '00): 342,040
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: 281,198
The Seattle Times (Endorsed Bush in '00): 237,303
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: 150,901
The Philadelphia Daily News: 139,983
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson): 109,592
Portland Press Herald (Maine): 73,211
The Day (New London, Conn.) (Endorsed Bush in '00): 39,553
Lone Star Iconoclast

Bush has:

Las Vegas Review-Journal: 170,061
Tulsa World (OK): 139,383
Mobile (Ala.) Register: 100,244
The Columbian (Vancouver, WA): 51,498
The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain: 52,208
Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News: 51,105
The Sun (Lowell, Mass.): 50,369
The Courier (Findlay, Ohio): 22,319

[Mike]

Lone Star Iconoclast

This was probably the most shocking newspaper on the list.

[J-Excel]

So the (liberal) media favors Kerry? Who's surprised?

Meanwhile, in the real world, elections went as well as could be expected in Afghanistan, and Sadr's militia is turning in its weapons.

[Mike]

Meanwhile, in the real world, elections went as well as could be expected in Afghanistan, and Sadr's militia is turning in its weapons.

Except for the fact that it isn't Sadr's entire militia turning over weapons, and they probably are only turning over the weapon cache that they won't need/use.

Afghanistan's elections went good. Well, except for the fact that people may have voted more than once, but hey, that doesn't matter.

[John Prophet]

yeah...the whole "ink on the thumb" thing....lol....

[johnnycombat]

Meanwhile, in the real world

The US is $7.3 trillion is debt.

[The Real Bingo]

Wow, a liberal paper supporting Kerry, that's news!

I just had to reiterate what J-Excel said.

[chipbgt]

The US is $7.3 trillion is debt.

yet with our GNP its still about an average debt. go figure!

[willy_ph]

And the endorsement from a paper helps the candidate how?

[originel]

did the non karzai candidates jump back in the race J-Excel? if not i wouldn't consider it a success.

[RADAR1797]

Originel,

I just saw on the news that the 15 candidates that had boycotted the election are now saying they abide by the results from the UN review. The fact that Afghanistan had elections without major terrorist attacks was a huge victory for the Afghanis.

-RADAR

[MTAtech]

Wow, a liberal paper supporting Kerry, that's news!

I just had to reiterate what J-Excel said.

Not just liberals support Kerry. Charlie Reese writes for the Orlando Sentinel. He's a Conservative Republican who is anti-abortion, anti-tax-and-spend, loudly critical of legislation by the judiciary, doesn't think much of multi-culturalism or secularism, has suggested Clinton "turned the Oval Office into a whorehouse," thinks Ronald Reagan is the greatest thing to come down the pike since canned beer, and voted for Bush in the last election. Take a look at his column.

Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet

Charlie Reese, Orlando Sentinel

Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers. I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a front man, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration.

Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory. It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts. But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice. It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign out-sourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing.

Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian. It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site (www.johnkerry.com) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French.

It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.

[chipbgt]

http://democrats.bushblog.us/

http://democrats4bush.com/

http://democratsforbush.blogspot.com/

there are plenty of democrats who will be voting for Bush.

[originel]

I just saw on the news that the 15 candidates that had boycotted the election are now saying they abide by the results from the UN review.

Ahhh, very cool. So then i would say it was a success, even if there were some hiccups. Yeah i guess the fact that this was the worst that happened is a good thing.

[BBA]

And the endorsement from a paper helps the candidate how?

Well after reading the link above on the Iconoclast, thats a good question...since all it has aparantly done to the Iconoclast is cause them loose readership and harm their ability to cover all stories.

I dont think their endorsement has changed any one's mind on the candidates.

Just reaffirms the point that news companies should stay out of politics...except to cover the stories. It's better that way.

Dan Rather would argue otherwise.