In what the Bush campaign will be certain to pass of as just another example of out-of-control Left-wing media bias, The Newspaper of Record has endorsed John Kerry. While recognizing that Kerry’s base is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than support for the Democratic candidate and his positions, the Times’ editorial board has nonetheless recognized that the past four years have been an unmitigated disaster.
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we’ve seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry’s wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry’s service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush’s disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right….
When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing’s war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.
If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.
The Times’ endorsement is not the heavily-qualified and shaded opposition of a conflicted and slim majority. Clearly, these folks have a solid grasp on what the past four years have been all about. George W. Bush has used his never-ending war on terror to push perhaps the most far-right, anti-liberty, fear-based political agenda this country has ever seen. Yet somehow, fully half of American voters support this sorry excuse for leadership.
Those of us who recognize the damage that George W. Bush and his neo-con minions have done (and continue to do) are doing everything in our power to elect John Kerry. Having the New York Times in our corner can only be a plus. At this late date, we can use help from anyone so inclined.
Much noise has been generated from the Right about “Anyone But Bush”. It’s true; some of us are not wild about Kerry, but there is certainly nothing wrong with pushing the “Anyone But Bush” ticket. Given the travesty that has been Bush’s four years in the White House, “Anyone But Bush” would easily be a significant improvement.
The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.
The president’s refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America’s security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation’s ports still goes uninspected.
Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration’s normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.
Clearly, this is not a President deserving of four more years. Of course, he didn’t really get the first four years to begin with. He lost the popular vote, and then had to rely on an extremely Conservative Supreme Court to APPOINT him to the Presidency.
George W. Bush is not a President worthy of the name, nor is he one worthy of having his thievery, dishonesty, and lack of candor with the American people rewarded with another four years. Read the Times endorsement. I think you’ll be surprised at the clarity and strength of their arguments.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
