Why I don't subscribe to my local paper

So my local paper has come out and endorsed President Bush. It's not all that surprising, really, and I had been expecting it for a while now. I did not, however, expect it to be such a hack job on democracy as a whole. For example:

But to turn our backs on President Bush now would send the wrong message to terrorists around the world. It would be an open invitation to come at us again because when they do, we toss out the leader who seeks revenge and retaliation.

It could say we are soft on terror. Is that really the message we want to send to Osama bin Laden? Of course not.

Indeed, not. Democracy in action would send a message to the world that America is weak on terror. Let's instead appoint Bush dictator for life.

If voters topple the Bush administration, we have allowed terrorists to tell us what to do. We Americans are stronger than that. We are independent thinkers who should make our voices heard at the polls, make it known that no one, nowhere can dictate to us.

Firing Bush also says that the United States is incapable of bringing democracy to the Middle East. We aren't.

First, if the Desert Sun really feels that "no one, nowhere can dictate to us" how to vote, then what is the purpose of having an endorsement in the first place?

Second, I fully intend to "topple the Bush administration." Perhaps this will make front page news for this paper, but I must report to the Desert Sun that not a single terrorist has "told me what to do." Of course, we Americans are stronger than choosing our President based on some two bit hack editorial on democracy as well.

We should choose a President and endorse him not fearmongering, but rather competence, something this editorial finds little of in the President. Can't say I blame them on that front.

Third, how would actually showing the world how democracy works be a sign that we are "incapable" of bring it to the Middle East? Who the heck wrote this thing, anyway, Karl Rove himself?

There's more:

Though many voters say they judge the candidates on the issues, let's not kid ourselves. Right or wrong, this campaign is as much about personalities as it is about issues. Not only has Bush won the personality contest, an essential component of any American election, he held his own in the trio of debates, the stage where Sen. John Kerry was expected to shine, possibly run away with the election.

Bush cleverly focused his attacks on Kerry's weak points, and skillfully avoided the gaffes many anticipated would be his demise. Bush isn’t as polished or as articulate as Kerry might be when it comes to spontaneous speeches or debates, but that isn't worth throwing him out of office. Bush himself has made fun of himself in this area.

Let me see if I can cut through this spin. You shouldn't judge a President on personality, but our guy has a better personality. And because a guy who is in charge of the free world didn't make any major gaffes during the debates (I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama) while managing to walk up right and not drool on himself, we think he's the best candidate for the job. He is clearly running away with this election because the polling lead he had closed after his competent performance in those debates.

Bush is smart to focus on Kerry because Bush himself hasn't done anything worth championing in the last four years. He has employed skill in not screwing up too badly, rather than the normal competence that you or I get credit for. And Bush can laugh at his inability to speak well, which should be, in our opinion, the final nail in Kerry's coffin. Heck, even if you can't string a complete sentence together, making fun of your inability makes you clearly the best choice for the highest office in the land.

More(guess which stuff is mine):

Bush is a man of character, devoted to principle(unable to admit error) and guided by a series of fundamental beliefs -- devotion to freedom (Patriot Act), faith in the American people(voter suppression), and suspicion of Big Government(larger bureaucracy than Clinton).

The whole editorial reads as if the Desert Sun is the newspaper of choice in Bush's alternate world. Ridiculous statements and absurd logical leaps abound in this thing, and they make no attempt to logical support any claims they make. For example, they call No Child Left Behind a success,then a failure because Bush has underfunded it.

Finally, my favorite line:

A divided nation opens the door to terrorists.

Now clearly, this editorial has caused me to become even more divided from the right wing partisan who spun this crap. And Bush administration policies based on strong arming Congress and driving the wedge deeper on social issue would, by logical conclusion, be not only Bush opening the door to terrorists, but inviting them over for dinner and letting them sleep in Laura's bed.

Clearly for me to waste this much energy on a small papers editorial shows how much my rancor has risen. I know in the long run this editorial will not change many minds and will have absolutely no impact on the election in general. It's just sad to think that to some people, partisan policy becomes more important than democracy itself.