From another list.
Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election
Published: Oct 17, 2004
W e find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and ``moderate man of mainstream convictions'' who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of ``nation building.''
We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush.
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.
Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose undistinguished Senate record stands at odds with our conservative principles and whose positions on the Iraq war - the central issue in this campaign - have been difficult to distinguish or differentiate.
It is an achingly difficult decision to not endorse a candidate in the presidential contest, and we do not reach this decision lightly.
The Tribune has endorsed a Republican for president ever since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, with one exception. We did not endorse in the 1964 presidential race because, as we said at the time, ``it is our feeling that unless a newspaper can recommend a candidate with complete conviction that he be the better choice for the office, it should make no endorsement.''
Like the country, this editorial board finds itself deeply divided about the president's prosecution of the war and his indifference to federal spending.
Bush Overstated The Evidence
Although Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, the nation rallied behind him after the terrorist strikes of 9/11. He transcended the political divide and became everyone's president the moment he picked up that bullhorn on the ashes of ground zero and promised the terrorists that they would hear from us. Aside from a few dancing extremists, the world stood with us. <...>
No Dissension Allowed
But groupthink took hold among the neocons, while those with contrary points of view, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, were sidelined until after key decisions were made. It was almost as though someone who asked tough questions was seen as siding with the terrorists. <...>
More Fear Ahead
What bothers us is that the president says that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq because Saddam had the ``intent'' to make nuclear weapons and was a ruthless dictator who killed his own people. If this nation-building succeeds, the president says, we will have built a friend in the Middle East. <...>
Bush's Spending Ways
While his prosecution of the war is the principal reason we cannot endorse the president's re-election, we are also deeply disappointed by his failure to control federal spending.
It must be said that Bush has been a friend to business, and his promise to simplify the tax code is alluring. He also has dramatically reduced government regulations that slow commerce and cost money. As one example, he rightfully ended the requirement that businesses report any employee complaint of carpal tunnel syndrome.
It should also be noted that his tax cuts spurred a sputtering economy and benefited not only the rich, but the middle class too. He doubled the child credit to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty and favored elimination of the death tax, all positions we supported.
However, although the numbers from recent months are more promising, the tax cuts did not spur the expected job growth. The nation has lost jobs during the Bush presidency, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to oversee a net loss of jobs.
But while the recession, 9/11 and profligate spending by Congress have grown the deficit, two-thirds can be traced back to the president's tax cuts, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Bush's mistake was failing to couple tax cuts with reduced spending. Instead of asking some sacrifice from the public, he allowed Congress to keep spending, including a giveaway program of farm subsidies.
Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Even Franklin Roosevelt scaled back New Deal programs after Pearl Harbor.
The result: Bush has turned the $150 billion surplus he inherited into a $450 billion deficit.
At one point, Congress tried to impose some fiscal discipline. Lawmakers said they would not pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit if the cost exceeded $400 billion over 10 years.
So what did the administration do? It fudged the numbers.
Thomas Scully, former head of the Medicare agency, threatened to fire chief actuary Richard Foster if he dared to tell lawmakers that the true cost stood between $500 billion and $600 billion.
To make matters worse, the president's law prohibits Medicare from negotiating the best prices from pharmaceutical companies.
Against this backdrop of spending, Bush announced a mission to Mars and support for a missile shield defense system, a Cold War throwback that would be nice to have but wouldn't stop the car bombs and speedboats that are today's terrorists' weapons of choice.
At the same time, Bush has done nothing to shrink the size of the federal government. He has not cut one agency's budget. In fact, at the Department of Education, he has actually increased spending by 68 percent.
We support a strong and accountable education system, but we do not support the added layer of federal regulation that Bush has imposed on Florida schools through his No Child Left Behind act.
The president modeled his plan after Florida's A-Plus Plan, which was doing well enough by itself. Now we have two government programs that send conflicting messages to Florida parents, teachers and students.
Yet, while throwing money at programs of questionable urgency, Bush has failed to adequately fund the Department of Homeland Security. Penny- pinching there means firefighters and police still lack radios that can talk to one another, cargo shipments at airports and seaports are not screened, and hospitals and biohazard labs feel underfunded and underequipped.
Government Behind Closed Doors
At the birth of the 9/11 millennium, President Bush rallied us around a new world order that required some loss of freedoms so that the government could do a better job of protecting us.
He passed the Patriot Act, which, while not perfect, gives law enforcement agencies the much-needed ability to talk with one another.
While we supported the Patriot Act, we are concerned by the president's relentless attack on open government.
According to the libertarian Reason Foundation, Bush has nearly doubled the number of classified documents, urged agencies to refuse Freedom of Information Act requests and invoked executive privilege wherever possible.
His administration doesn't want citizens to know when hazardous chemicals are routed through their towns, how the repair of tenuous electric grids is going or who was at the table to form the nation's energy policy.
Typical of this administration, only industry lobbyists and like-minded people were allowed at the table to craft the energy plan. People who might dissent - consumer groups and conservationists - were not invited.
Within a year of Cheney's energy task force, the administration had given billions in subsidies to energy firms and begun weakening pollution laws while opening up wilderness areas to exploitation. The administration misled people by calling a plan to weaken pollution controls the Clear Skies initiative. As one example, the new law allows coal- burning power plants to avoid installing pollution-control equipment during renovations.
The Failed Compassionate Conservative
President Bush told us that he was ``uniter, not a divider,'' but shortly after taking office, his administration took a sharp right turn that has divided this country.
We were glad to see him sign the ban on late-term abortions. While we don't favor the criminalization of abortion, we want to see the number of abortions reduced. It is not uncommon to place limits on freedoms, such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. Limits on abortion can be justified too.
We also agree that religion and tradition define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, we believe marriage laws should rightfully be left to the states. We don't support the president's decision to engage this country in a fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Probably most disappointing, however, is his leadership in Washington.
Besides the White House, Republicans control the House and the Senate and all committee chairs. But rather than reach across the aisle, this president has deepened the divide in Congress, where Republican leaders have uninvited Democrats from conference committees where differences are reconciled. We would not condone such behavior from Democrats and shouldn't accept it from Republicans.
We had expected something different, given Bush's tenure in Texas.
People view Bush as a man with strong convictions. And while he's clearly convinced of the rightness of his ways, that doesn't mean he's always right.
This president doesn't try to hear from people who disagree, choosing instead to keep the counsel of staunch supporters. He disdains news conferences and brags that he doesn't read the newspapers. He counts on his core group of insiders to tell him what he needs to know.
When asked if he consulted his father, the only other president to have waged war against Iraq, Bush unabashedly said that he spoke to a ``higher father.'' Presidential decisions about sending men and women to war should be based on fact, not prayer.
Still, the president seems like a nice guy. He is plain-spoken and says what he means. People who've met him come away impressed. If he were a drinking man, they say, they would enjoy having a beer with him. But we're not electing Mr. Congeniality. We're electing the leader of the free world and should set a higher standard than likability.
On a large scale, Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to be a compassionate conservative.
Kerry Concerns Us Too
We have written today mostly about Bush because he was our choice the last time around and we believed his conservative principles were most closely aligned with ours.
But neither do we see the senator from Massachusetts as someone we can endorse.
We're not sure what Kerry thinks. He supported the war in Iraq, then opposed adequately funding the troops. His plan to secure the peace in Iraq is to cozy up to European countries that don't have our interests at heart.
This is the same man who as a senator for 20 years has no significant legislation to his name and voted against all of the major weapons systems that have made America the most powerful country in the world.
Kerry would repeal Bush's tax cut for Americans who earn more than $200,000, but he doesn't say how he would create his promised 10 million jobs. And he promises to lower health insurance premiums, though the math looks fuzzy.
He made veracity an issue by putting his noble service in Vietnam front and center in his campaign. He wants to be treated as a hero, but 30 years ago he claimed Americans committed atrocities. He seems shocked that people doubt him and don't consider him a hero.
Early Voting Starts Tomorrow
When early voting opens in Florida on Monday, you can begin going to the polls to pick the leader you think will best protect us and move our country forward.
The president's backers argue that his resolve and strength prove him to be the best leader for the next four years. Kerry's people argue that it's time for a change.
You've heard from the candidates and you've heard our analysis.
Now it's time for you to vote.
Voting is a matter of faith, since no one can predict what either candidate will do. Voting is a personal choice, one of the most personal things we do. We encourage you to look deep within yourself and choose the candidate you think most clearly represents your views.
Of one thing we are certain: America is the greatest country on earth and will survive, no matter the outcome on Nov. 2.