It seems this past sunday is dubbed 'Super Sunday' as that the day most newspapers publish their endorsements for President of the United States. Well, According to dKosopedia.com (which is keeping a tally of endorsements, 133-69 for Kerry in case you are wondering) It seems 33 newspapers have 'flip-flopped'... that is switched their year 2000 endorsement of Bush by endorsing Kerry in this years election. That number doesn't include the 6 newspapers that endorsed Bush and are now endorsing neither candidate. By contrast only 2 newspapers have gone from supporting Gore in 2000 to endorsing Bush in 2004.
My favorite endorsement reads were of a paper that switched from Bush to Kerry (in the battleground state of Florida nonetheless!), The Orlando Sentinel and one of the two papers that switched from Gore to Bush, The Denver Post. (Note, tho, that according to EditorAndPublisher.com the Denver Post has a new editor this time around and he is 'known as a strong Bush supporter.')
I almost totally agree with what the Orlando Sentinel has to say but the interesting thing is that I, to a certain extent agree with what the Denver Post says. I was pleased to find an example of what last week I called the only respectable reason to vote for Bush. In essence, they stated that they did not believe what John Kerry said he would do. They then said something most Bush supporters, sadly, would never admit: Our support for Bush is tempered by unease over the poor choices and results of his first term. To succeed in his second-term, Bush must begin by taking responsibility for U.S. failures in Iraq, admit his mistakes and adjust U.S. strategy. (Get that! They admitted Bush's failures) I whole heartedly agree with that statement. If Bush were to be reelected he would need to admit his mistakes and adjust accordingly...
The crux is twofold (can a crux even be twofold??): First, I (along with at least 133 newspaper editors it would appear), do not believe Bush is capable of fixing the mistakes that, even newspapers that endorse him say, he made. (Remember, Bush doesn't even acknowledge these mistakes.) Bush has lost his credibility in the world and is not willing to truly become a 'uniter' by, as the Denver Post puts it, 'reach[ing] out for Democratic talent' for help. Second, I feel George W. Bush should be held accountable for, specifically, those mistakes. He should also be held responsible for policies in issues, like the environment, that apparantly aren't as important to Americans since 9/11. Even the Denver Post admits '[Bush] bows to corporate preference in matters of energy and environment' and that Kerry's postions 'are the superior proposals on environmental protection, on stem-cell research and judicial nominations.'
For me, this leave only one question which would keep me from endorsing John Kerry. Would the United States be less safe if Kerry were to become president? I do not believe it would. That is not to say the U.S. will not be attacked again, understand that no matter who is elected, there will be more attacks. I just do not believe either man would be better for the job of protecting America from terrorism. I do believe, though, that John Kerry would be the better man for restoring US credibility, keeping our environment safe, providing basic needs like health and education, and fixing our enormous budget deficit. (ironically enough that last point is a conservative belief which I hold: fiscal responsibility.)
No comments:
Post a Comment