More papers for Kerry

I realize that newspaper endorsements probably won't sway many this election, but I think every little bit helps. More interesting to me is the number of papers that have gone from endorsing Bush in 2000 to his opponent in this election. Here are a few of them.

The Muskegon Chronicle(MI):

[Bush] wants more tax cuts. We ask, is that responsible? Never, ever, during a war has a president asked for tax cuts. It is the job of the president to ask citizens to sacrifice so that when the war is over, the basic fabric of the nation isn't torn to shreds. This president hasn't asked. Instead, he panders.

The legacy of the Bush economic policy is the squandering of the surplus from 2000, turning it into the biggest ongoing orgy of deficit spending in American history, and piling debt onto debt for future generations to bear.

We can do better. We must do better.

The Columbia Daily Tribune(MO):

For quite a few months I reluctantly believed uninterrupted leadership in the ongoing war on terror trumped all else in deciding who should be the next president of the United States.

It was a fragile conclusion. On most other grounds I could not support George W. Bush, and after a commendable initial showing of resolve, he certainly has not conducted the war in a thoroughly exemplary manner. In many ways he’s been one of our worst presidents. Even so, his opponent, John Kerry, was plodding along, not encouraging much support for his own candidacy.

However, day by day, the prospect of a Kerry presidency is more encouraging. It’s time to remove Bush from the White House, and Kerry emerges as a reasonable alternative. Earlier, I wrote I probably would hold my nose and vote for Bush. Today I breathe freely, quite at ease with removing this incumbent and installing another leader who deserves more confidence.

The Daily Camera(Boulder, CO):

John Kerry may not have his opponent's instinctive ability to connect with ordinary Americans. But he possesses three qualities even more important at this hour in history — a willingness to assess the facts honestly, to level with the public, and to tap the best minds regardless of political affiliation. American presidents once sought counsel from experts in the opposition party — and even appointed them to Cabinet positions from time to time. Kerry shows refreshing signs of a bipartisan spirit that Bush utterly lacks.

President Bush's early response to the terrorist attacks offered some basis for hope that he might lead the United States effectively through the ordeal of an unprecedented war. The wreckage of that hope is now strewn across the country and around the world. Bring on new leadership, a new vision and new hope. John Kerry is the clear choice in the 2004 election.

The Brandenton Herald(FL):

When the Herald recommended the election of George W. Bush as president of the United States four years ago, we lauded his record in Texas as a consensus builder and expressed confidence in his ability to unite the country after four years of bitter partisanship. We liked his slogan, "A uniter, not a divider," and criticized opponent Al Gore's role as point man for Democrats' mean-spiritedness.

How poorly we understood George W. Bush in 2000. We could not imagine the possibility that, just four years later, Bush would have done just what we feared of Gore - that the United States would barely be on speaking terms with some of its staunchest allies, and that America would be reviled around the world as a bullying, imperialist superpower. How far we have fallen from the bright fiscal forecast in 2000, with surpluses that offered the promise of debt paydown now replaced with a staggering $500 billion annual deficit and the national debt projected to exceed $9 trillion by 2010.

As for Bush being a uniter, sadly, the nation is more polarized than it has been since the 1960s. Bush's administration is notable for its lack of transparency, its intolerance of dissent, its refusal to admit mistakes. Under Bush's leadership and Republican control, Congress has become a mean-spirited, partisan body where the vice president is praised for cursing an opposition senator on the Senate floor. The "compassionate conservative" president has people at outdoor rallies arrested for hoisting an opposition sign.

(snip)

The Herald Editorial Board's recommendation of Kerry was a difficult decision, and it was not unanimous. It comes with the stipulation that Kerry stick to his promises to support our troops, to secure the homeland, to protect the middle class from tax increases while reining in federal spending, to choose open-minded Supreme Court nominees if vacancies occur, and to strengthen the economy and protect the job base. Certainly there is a degree of risk in choosing one who is untried. But then, we face that uncertainty with every first-term president. At least we have the benefit of four years of Bush's administration to help us make the choice. It comes down to this simple question famously asked by Ronald Reagan in 1980: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

The answer, clearly, is no. Ultimately, that is why we recommend John Kerry as president of the United States in the Nov. 2 election.

The Daily Herald(Arlington Heights,IL):

Where we find hope in Kerry's leadership on foreign affairs is not in his somewhat naive vow to entice allies into the fray but in his recognition that the United States must more wisely allocate its finite efforts and resources if we are to prevail in the war on terrorism . Kerry, we believe, would place appropriately greater emphasis on such essential matters as securing nuclear material abroad and tightening our borders at home. Kerry knows from personal experience that wars unleash terrible, unforeseen consequences; we believe he would be admirably more restrained than Bush in placing U.S. troops in harm's way.

The Winston Salem Journal chooses not to reendorse Bush:

Today we find that our worries about a Bush presidency have been confirmed, but our optimism about his ability to lead has not.

The Tampa Tribune also chooses no one over choosing Bush again:

As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world.

Those two choose not to endorse Kerry because he does not match their Conservative values. They don't endorse Bush because is their eyes he is a failed leader. And that, it seems, is worse.