Newspaper Endorsements - here they come

John Kerry for President

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.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

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.

...

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.

... 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.

...

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

...

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course.

...

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

...

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.

Also, an interesting assessment of whether any of this matters.

A collection of links to today's papers endorsing Kerry - there are about 20 of them, mostly serving battleground states. They include, by state, with commentary...

Florida - Miami Herald (the big paper), Daytona-Beach News Journal (serving key swing area), St. Petersburg Times (same), the Bradenton Herald (in a red county!), Palm Beach Post

Kentucky - Lexington Herald-Leader (from a mostly red area)

Minnesota - Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald (in a very red area)

Missouri - The Kansas City Star

North Carolina - Charlotte Observer (the big paper, and from a red area)

Ohio - Dayton Daily News (serving swing area), Akron Beacon Journal (same)

Pennsylvania - York Daily Observer (in a very red area)

What endorsements will be big in the race, if any? The Columbus Dispatch seems pretty clearly to be the biggest. I think the Des Moines Register and the Arizona Republic might also be biggies. Some others that I think might be important, by state:

Arizona - Albuquerque Journal?

Arkansas - Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Memphis Commercial Appeal?

Colorado - Denver Post, Albuquerque Journal?

Florida - Orlando Sentinel, Florida Times-Union, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentineal, Tampa Tribune, Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Michigan - Grand Rapids Press

New Jersey - Newark Star-Ledger, Asbury Park Press, Bergen Record

New Mexico - Albuquerque Journal

Ohio - Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati Post, Toledo Blade

Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Allentown Morning Call, Greensburg Tribune-Review, Harrisburg Patriot-News, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Virginia - Washington Post, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, Richmond Times-Dispatch

Wisconsin - St. Paul Pioneer Press, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Duluth News-Tribune

Editorial: John Kerry/The right choice for president
October 17, 2004 ED1017

Political passions are burning white hot as Nov. 2 nears. Americans realize what is at stake: the United States' ability to lead in the world, protect its citizens at home, preserve its treasured liberties, and leave a legacy of hope and opportunity. George W. Bush's presidency has put all that at risk. Sen. John Kerry proposes a sharp course change.

The Star Tribune endorses John Kerry for president.

Long steeped in U.S. foreign policy, Kerry understands that safeguarding Americans and pursuing national interests require strong alliances and deft diplomacy -- that the exercise of military power by itself does little but breed resentment. He knows that an indispensable part of the United States' power to lead in the world derives from its status as a beacon of freedom, morality and justice. Kerry recognizes that to prevail in the struggle against terrorism, America must return to the moral high ground rather than unilaterally pursue a perverted, narrow vision of its national interest.

At home Kerry would roll back Bush's tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, now the chief cause of massive federal deficits, and work to shore up the middle class. He has presented a sound plan for affordable health care, while shunning GOP efforts to privatize pieces of Medicare and Social Security. He would reverse Bush's devious dismantling of environmental protections, and he would preserve the safety net that protects America's most vulnerable citizens.

Great presidential leadership harnesses keen policy insight, brilliant use of executive skills and the ability to inspire American citizens -- appealing to their highest aspirations and uniting them in pursuit of the nation's noblest values.

At the very least, the presidency requires stewardship: of America's people and the economy that sustains them, of the Constitution that guides and protects them, and of the United States' singular leadership in the world. President Bush has profoundly failed these requirements.

While seeking office in 2000, Bush defined himself as "a uniter, not a divider." He has proved to be the most divisive, insular and partisan president since Richard Nixon. He ran as a moderate, but has pursued radical goals that have plunged the nation into debt and injected the government into the most personal of family matters. He promised to conduct foreign policy humbly, yet he repeatedly spurned allies, culminating in his arrogant and misguided rush to war on Iraq.

Nothing in President Bush's performance has been more damaging to U.S. strength and security than his wholesale redefinition of America's relationship with other nations. Disdainful of policy nuances, Bush relied on a small group of advisers to craft a dangerous departure from consultative foreign policy. He spurned the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol and the Biological Weapons Convention. Relying almost solely on military muscle to do his will in the world, he projected an attitude that said: We'll do what we want; fall in line behind us or lump it. This dangerous unilateralism, apparent early in Bush's tenure, became crystal clear after the tragedy of 9/11.

Bush had planned from the earliest days of the administration to topple Saddam Hussein. Indeed, his preoccupation with Iraq and missile defense in early 2001 seems to have prevented him from recognizing the growing dangers of Al-Qaida -- despite the urgent warnings of his own counterterrorism expert. Though the Sept. 11 attacks brought an immediate outpouring of heartfelt sympathy and offers of help from abroad, Bush attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan on his own terms, virtually alone.

Soon the administration diverted U.S. attention and resources to the invasion of Iraq. The way Bush did it demonstrates another of the most important reasons to deny him a second term: his pattern of deception and secrecy. He sold the war on Iraq, a defanged nation, by repeatedly suggesting a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He argued that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction posed an urgent threat to U.S. security. The connections didn't exist, and neither did the weapons.

The decision for war came first; the way to justify it came second, and has changed often.

Bush has governed with mendacity and secrecy at home as well, undermining the democratic imperatives of accountability, transparency and openness. Just as his reasons for war in Iraq have shifted repeatedly, his rationale for tax cuts has changed to suit his convenience: In 2000, candidate Bush said his tax package was designed to return a big surplus to taxpayers; later, with the government running massive budget deficits, he said the very same tax cuts were designed to give the economy short-term stimulus and rebuild government revenues.

As recently as last week, Bush claimed that middle-class families are receiving the bulk of tax relief under his fiscal policies, even though a widely published nonpartisan analysis shows that two-thirds of the tax relief this year went to the top 20 percent of households.

Last year, as his landmark Medicare bill awaited a crucial vote in Congress, Bush said it would cost just $400 billion; lawmakers later learned that internal White House estimates had climbed to $534 billion and that the administration had threatened to fire a career government actuary if he disclosed the higher number.

And instead of waging an open assault on environmental protections, Bush hid plans to weaken air pollution laws and open more public lands to logging behind Orwellian names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."

The United States is paying for all this -- with a declining standard of living for the middle class, a massive debt left to future generations, and a weakened position abroad. A turnaround is essential.

John Kerry can effectively lead that turnaround. Kerry has a long, solid record of bipartisan cooperation and fiscal responsibility. He's been a leading proponent of the "pay-as-you-go" principle: To spend more on a program, you must identify how you'll pay for it without borrowing. His proposals are responsible and creative; for example, Kerry's health plan expands on our current system by offering incentives and more choices for patients.

Kerry knows how to effectively join with U.S. allies to leverage the vast power of international will. Contrary to Bush's portrait of him as a "flip-flopper" on Iraq, he says today what he said on Oct. 9, 2002, when he voted to give Bush authority to go to war: "In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made ... to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." Bush failed to do so, and Kerry has spoken out.

Kerry's approach demonstrates maturity, nuance and thoughtfulness. Those qualities don't always play well in campaign sound bites. But they will serve America exceedingly well in the Oval Office.

The United States deserves a Kerry victory on Nov. 2.

...in cities right on the Wisconsin border, in key swing areas. Do Wisconsinites not read them at all?

So if you live in Duluth, you're a Vikings fan, but if you live in Superior you're a Packers fan? If you live in Winona, you're a Vikings fan, but if you live in La Crosse, you're a Packers fan?

oh yeah, that was the 'shove it' paper, wasn't it?

Link above doesn't work - Daily Kos' endorsement collection is here

Newspaper endorsements are so incredibly dud.

also, a lil' paper called the Lone Star Iconoclast has, too; it serves the Crawford, Texas area.

Yes, exactly. The Minnesota papers don't seem to cross the border much at all. But you were right about the Grand Forks Herald; we had that one in my home town, 3/4 of the way to the iron range.

That would be the Green Bay Press-Gazette. They read their local papers. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Chicago Tribune are also ubiquitous (lots of transplants all over the state, you know).

Reflect what? The opinion of a newspaper publisher? Who cares?

alyssa milano was here in colorado yesterday trying to get votes for kerry in colorado, i wonder if she succeeded. i hear she delivered an important policy address in greeley.

the economist is strange, they are clearly right-leaning on issues concerning trade and property rights but then they have a leftward tilt on their opinion pieces. kerry's a protectionist, how do they reconcile this witht heir magazine's principles?

you mean like this woman?
http://portlandtribune.com/newsi/40817C.LeadArt.jpg

oh wait, sorry, that was a 'security mom' for bush!

The Economist will reconcile it because they would rather have a healthy protectionist economy than a severely damaged economy. Neither party is going to mimic the Economist's position on trade, so they'll be pragmatic and support the party that is best for the country and it's economy. Bush's record shows that no sensible economist could support him. Also "lunatic left"? How right-wing are you?

anyway, while it's nice to point out how many papers have endorsed kerry it's also a bit pointless -- in that republicans and the right think that the press is biased anyway.

No, they're significant in their impact. They're significant because voters are swayed by the last (semi-)coherent argument that they hear. Call it the "Marc Antony effect."

Of the kind that assumes one's own position is the basis of normality. Sadly, it is not often realized (on all sides) that this definition of normality is up for grabs.

Uh, maybe because Kerry's not a protectionist? He voted for NAFTA, for god's sake -- that was Edwards' whole line of attack against him in the primaries. I'm not impressed by his "Benedict Arnold CEOs" shtick, but I understand why he does it, it resonates with a lot of people who have been lied to about their economic prospects. If you look at Kerry's record, he's a moderate free-trader -- at least as moderate as the steel-tariff/no-steel-tariff farm-subsidy-handout Bush administration.

Neither candidate is being honest with Americans about the realities of the global economy, but free-traders should have no more worries about Kerry than Bush.

very, very OTM

Someone at work recommended the National Journal. It's supposed to be nonpartisan. Is that correct? I skimmed an article on Kerry's position on offshoring. The author thinks protectionism is bad. (He suggests that the overall effect on employment is minimal and that jobs that aren't moved overseas don't necessarily translate into more jobs here.) I don't know what to make of the issue.

Do newspaper endorsements represent a conflict of interests? In a way it seems okay for local papers, but I don't know about papers that have a national audience, but that would mean that there was a double standard, but then again endorsements seem to reinforce geographically based divisions. This is probably naive, but it seems like there should be some (or more) nonpartisan publications.

The Virginian-Pilot comes out for Kerry today

Well I can see how that...huh?

Apparently they've settled on a No Endorsement instead.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802