Gen. Wesley Clark agrees with Bush:
"Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that '... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief'.
President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.
By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief."
I agree as well......
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
More Good News
Thirty Six Newspapers that endorsed the Chimp in 2000 are endorsing John Kerry this election.
Something Else that is Being Hidden from You
As if you couldn't guess it was hiding out there. A prominent NASA scientist said today that the Bush administration is consistently hiding the dangers of Global Warming from the public.
'In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,' James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.
Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that 'fit predetermined, inflexible positions.' Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.
'This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster.'
Here is the Link
'In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,' James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.
Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that 'fit predetermined, inflexible positions.' Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.
'This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster.'
Here is the Link
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Toward never!
The Chimp is still moving in the right direction. I have to admit he seems to be doing something right but it is probably my imagination--it's the American people waking up.
The Washington Post Poll daily tracking poll.....
Bush | Kerry
10/26 | 48 | 50
10/25 | 48 | 49
10/24 | 48 | 48
10/23 | 50 | 46
10/22 | 50 | 46
10/21 | 51 | 45"
The Washington Post Poll daily tracking poll.....
Bush | Kerry
10/26 | 48 | 50
10/25 | 48 | 49
10/24 | 48 | 48
10/23 | 50 | 46
10/22 | 50 | 46
10/21 | 51 | 45"
A Letter to Americans from an Iraqi Blogger
Here is a link to an open letter to Americans from Riverbend. (Those of you who either don't know about or read Riverbend a young woman who has been blogging from Iraq since before we attacked.) Here is part of it, but read it all, please.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Americans, the name of your country which once stood for 'freedom & justice' is tarnished worldwide. Your latest president has proved that the great American image of democracy is just that ---- an image. You can protest, you can demonstrate, you can vote ---- but it ends there. The reigns were out of your hands the moment Bush stepped into the White House. You were deceived repetitively and duped into two wars. Your sons and daughters are dying, and killing, in foreign lands, your embassies are in danger all over the world. 'America' has become synonymous with 'empire,' 'hegemony' and 'warfare.' And why? All because you needed to be diverted away from the fact that your current president is a failure.
Some people associate the decision to go to war as a 'strength.' How strong do you need to be to commit thousands of your countrymen and women to death on foreign soil? Especially while you and your loved ones sit safely watching at home. How strong do you need to be to give orders to bomb cities to rubble and use the most advanced military technology available against a country with a weak army and crumbling infrastructure? You don't need to be strong, you need to be mad.
Americans ---- can things be worse for you? Can things be worse for us in Iraq? Of course they can...only imagine-four more years of Bush."
Thanks to Tena at First-Draft for pointing it out.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Americans, the name of your country which once stood for 'freedom & justice' is tarnished worldwide. Your latest president has proved that the great American image of democracy is just that ---- an image. You can protest, you can demonstrate, you can vote ---- but it ends there. The reigns were out of your hands the moment Bush stepped into the White House. You were deceived repetitively and duped into two wars. Your sons and daughters are dying, and killing, in foreign lands, your embassies are in danger all over the world. 'America' has become synonymous with 'empire,' 'hegemony' and 'warfare.' And why? All because you needed to be diverted away from the fact that your current president is a failure.
Some people associate the decision to go to war as a 'strength.' How strong do you need to be to commit thousands of your countrymen and women to death on foreign soil? Especially while you and your loved ones sit safely watching at home. How strong do you need to be to give orders to bomb cities to rubble and use the most advanced military technology available against a country with a weak army and crumbling infrastructure? You don't need to be strong, you need to be mad.
Americans ---- can things be worse for you? Can things be worse for us in Iraq? Of course they can...only imagine-four more years of Bush."
Thanks to Tena at First-Draft for pointing it out.
I Need a President - Again
You won't find a much more passionate statement that reflects our need for a new president than this one from John Cory and Truthout.
It is a must read. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
It is a must read. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Monday, October 25, 2004
The New Yorker Endorses Kerry
Amazing! This is the first time in its 80 year history The New Yorker enters the political fray. Following is a paragraph from near the end. You should read the whole thing.
This is via the Official John Kerry Blog
"The damage visited upon America, and upon America's standing in the world, by the Bush Administration's reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation."
This is via the Official John Kerry Blog
"The damage visited upon America, and upon America's standing in the world, by the Bush Administration's reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they'd most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation."
High Explosives for Dummies via Xan at Corrente
Xan at Corrente has an excellent contribution to the general knowlege pool concerning high explosives of the type handed to the terroists in Iraq by George and company. No wonder the very small bit of it used so far has killed over a 1000 of our loved ones and 10,000 or so of the people we are liberating.
Here's the meme " Seven hundred and sixty thousand pounds of high explosive. One pound took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie."
"The difference is in the speed of the explosion. The reason [another 'slow' explosive called ANFO] used in mining is because it has a slower reaction rate, producing gas and shockwaves that shove rather than shatter.
In most mines, high explosive sticks or gel packs are fired which shatters the rock and detonates the ANFO. The ANFO than pushes the shattered rock outward.
The shattering effect is what makes RDX and such so deadly. A barrel containing a small amount of ANFO and detonated will tend to rupture and separate into large chunks. If the pressure wave doesn't get you, you have pretty good odds of getting away unscathed because there are only a few large pieces flying around.
A barrel with RDX or another high explosive turns into a grenade, forming many more smaller fragments with much higher velocities."
YOU SHOULD READ THE WHOLE POST SO THAT YOU CAN IMPRESS UPON THE SHEEP WHAT THIS MEANS!
UPdate: Fixed Link
Here's the meme " Seven hundred and sixty thousand pounds of high explosive. One pound took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie."
"The difference is in the speed of the explosion. The reason [another 'slow' explosive called ANFO] used in mining is because it has a slower reaction rate, producing gas and shockwaves that shove rather than shatter.
In most mines, high explosive sticks or gel packs are fired which shatters the rock and detonates the ANFO. The ANFO than pushes the shattered rock outward.
The shattering effect is what makes RDX and such so deadly. A barrel containing a small amount of ANFO and detonated will tend to rupture and separate into large chunks. If the pressure wave doesn't get you, you have pretty good odds of getting away unscathed because there are only a few large pieces flying around.
A barrel with RDX or another high explosive turns into a grenade, forming many more smaller fragments with much higher velocities."
YOU SHOULD READ THE WHOLE POST SO THAT YOU CAN IMPRESS UPON THE SHEEP WHAT THIS MEANS!
UPdate: Fixed Link
Financial Times backs Kerry, bashes 'radical' Bush
Yahoo! News - Financial Times backs Kerry, bashes 'radical' Bush
Well, Well, Well. It seems the most respected Financial Times has decided to endorse John Kerry.
The paper, one of the world's leading financial dailies, called Bush "a polarizer, exploiting the war on terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the world into Them and Us."
"Mr. Bush's flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit mistakes and to adjust personnel and policy. Blind faith in military power as a tool for change has too often influenced decision-making," it said.
"The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism but Mr. Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the rest of the world, and a large constituency at home already fearful of the religious right."
While the average Bushie won't see this on CNN or FAUX it tickles my root.
Well, Well, Well. It seems the most respected Financial Times has decided to endorse John Kerry.
The paper, one of the world's leading financial dailies, called Bush "a polarizer, exploiting the war on terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the world into Them and Us."
"Mr. Bush's flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit mistakes and to adjust personnel and policy. Blind faith in military power as a tool for change has too often influenced decision-making," it said.
"The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism but Mr. Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the rest of the world, and a large constituency at home already fearful of the religious right."
While the average Bushie won't see this on CNN or FAUX it tickles my root.
Matthew Yglesias: John Kerry For President
Well - Matthew does a pretty good job of explaining his position and we accept it with thanks.
Matthew Yglesias: John Kerry For President
"Things are not better now than when George W. Bush took office. Instead, on virtually every front there has been deterioration. The proportion of the population at work has fallen. The number of people with health insurance has fallen. The number of people living in poverty has risen. The dollar -- and with it the average American's purchasing power -- has fallen. The federal government's fiscal capacity to cope with an unexpected crisis or the looming problems in Medicare financing has deteriorated. The esteem in which America is held in the world has fallen. The degree of trust foreign governments and the American people have in the US President's description of foreign threats has fallen. The number of terrorist attacks has risen. The state of human rights in China has fallen. Russia's progress toward democracy has been reversed. Politics in the non-Iraq portions of the Middle East are less liberal. In Iraq, a dictatorship and the human suffering of the sanctions regime has been replaced by chaos and the human suffering of a civil war. The American military is less prepared to cope with a foreign threat. The propensity of friendly governments to cooperate with us has eroded markedly. One could go on."
Matthew Yglesias: John Kerry For President
"Things are not better now than when George W. Bush took office. Instead, on virtually every front there has been deterioration. The proportion of the population at work has fallen. The number of people with health insurance has fallen. The number of people living in poverty has risen. The dollar -- and with it the average American's purchasing power -- has fallen. The federal government's fiscal capacity to cope with an unexpected crisis or the looming problems in Medicare financing has deteriorated. The esteem in which America is held in the world has fallen. The degree of trust foreign governments and the American people have in the US President's description of foreign threats has fallen. The number of terrorist attacks has risen. The state of human rights in China has fallen. Russia's progress toward democracy has been reversed. Politics in the non-Iraq portions of the Middle East are less liberal. In Iraq, a dictatorship and the human suffering of the sanctions regime has been replaced by chaos and the human suffering of a civil war. The American military is less prepared to cope with a foreign threat. The propensity of friendly governments to cooperate with us has eroded markedly. One could go on."
Bull Moose jumps on the latest Corporate Tax Giveaway
Bull Moose: "Here is the great Washinton conceit - the President goes on and on about how the country is at war and that these are extraordinary times. Yet, the only ones sacrificing in this unusual war are the brave heroes who are risking their lives on the front lines in combat and their families."
This whole disaster got almost no play in the media. The average American taxpayer has no idea how he has been screwed once again and that Bush just spent another chunk of our future.
"The Moose wonders how many Gold Star mothers benefited from this law? How many families of servicemen and women who perished in this struggle will gain a new loophole? How many Marines surrounding Fallujah will see their paycheck increase because of this law?"
This whole disaster got almost no play in the media. The average American taxpayer has no idea how he has been screwed once again and that Bush just spent another chunk of our future.
"The Moose wonders how many Gold Star mothers benefited from this law? How many families of servicemen and women who perished in this struggle will gain a new loophole? How many Marines surrounding Fallujah will see their paycheck increase because of this law?"
Jimmy Carter - Bush is exploiting the suffering of (/11
Jimmy Carter is not holding back on his criticism of Bush in this article from the Guardian.
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter: "George Bush has exploited the suffering of September 11 and turned back decades of efforts to make the world a safer place, the former president Jimmy Carter says in an interview with the Guardian published today.
Attacking Mr Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq, Mr Carter calls the war 'a completely unjust adventure based on misleading statements'.
He also criticises Mr Bush for 'lack of effort' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and accuses him of abandoning nuclear non-proliferation initiatives championed by five presidents."
...and he [ed. Bush] has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America," Mr Carter says.
"He's repeatedly played that card, and to some degree quite successfully. I think that success has dissipated. I don't know if it's dissipating fast enough to affect the election. We'll soon know."
Yep we'll soon know.
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter: "George Bush has exploited the suffering of September 11 and turned back decades of efforts to make the world a safer place, the former president Jimmy Carter says in an interview with the Guardian published today.
Attacking Mr Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq, Mr Carter calls the war 'a completely unjust adventure based on misleading statements'.
He also criticises Mr Bush for 'lack of effort' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and accuses him of abandoning nuclear non-proliferation initiatives championed by five presidents."
...and he [ed. Bush] has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America," Mr Carter says.
"He's repeatedly played that card, and to some degree quite successfully. I think that success has dissipated. I don't know if it's dissipating fast enough to affect the election. We'll soon know."
Yep we'll soon know.
Finally Someone is Asking Questions
WSJ.com - Questions Mount Over Failure to Hit Zarqawi's Camp: ">From the Wall Street Journal
"As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country."
"But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq."
This was probably one of the greatest missed opportunities in the campaign against terrorism and the nobody has pressed this issue.
"As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country."
"But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq."
This was probably one of the greatest missed opportunities in the campaign against terrorism and the nobody has pressed this issue.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Karmic Revolution
Josh Marshall has the whole story on the complete screw up and coverup. Want to make bets whether this gets any mainstream play? Just in case, if you can't put two and two together, these are the explosives that have killed over a thousand of our best.
"This has been rumored in Washington for several days. And now the Nelson Report has broken the story.
Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded"
"This has been rumored in Washington for several days. And now the Nelson Report has broken the story.
Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded"
Self-Interest - A Broader View
Jesse over at Pandagon has a post asking about why it seem the Republicans are always trying to disnfranchise while the Dems are doing the opposite.
It always boils down to the fundamental difference and that is greed. The other guys (any idiot that would vote to elect Bush) vote strictly on what they "perceive" as their self interest. This is typically either short sighted, mis-informed or flat wrong but it is what they think. We, on the other hand, seem to take a different view of exactly what is in our best interest and it involves a grasp of the bigger picture. We see the fundamental reality of "Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later". We too vote for our own self interest but I believe it is a broader view.
It always boils down to the fundamental difference and that is greed. The other guys (any idiot that would vote to elect Bush) vote strictly on what they "perceive" as their self interest. This is typically either short sighted, mis-informed or flat wrong but it is what they think. We, on the other hand, seem to take a different view of exactly what is in our best interest and it involves a grasp of the bigger picture. We see the fundamental reality of "Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later". We too vote for our own self interest but I believe it is a broader view.
How Many More Like This?
Xan over at Corrente has the blurb via Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice
I keep reading stories like this from all parts of the country and I just was wondering how many others, for no apparent reason, have been shunted out of Chimp parties. It is bound to be adding up "Karma Wise". I wouldn't be surprised if this policy of only allowing the othe "Kool-Aid" drinkers into the party turns out to be a major turn off for many borderline voters. It may not be concious but it might needle them enough to make a difference.
I keep reading stories like this from all parts of the country and I just was wondering how many others, for no apparent reason, have been shunted out of Chimp parties. It is bound to be adding up "Karma Wise". I wouldn't be surprised if this policy of only allowing the othe "Kool-Aid" drinkers into the party turns out to be a major turn off for many borderline voters. It may not be concious but it might needle them enough to make a difference.
These guys are sweating
Via Daily Kos
Kos has this quote from an insider in the GOP and from the internal polls in the Bush camp things suck.
"GOP officials who talked to Bush-Cheney campaign leaders said the leaders have grown more worried about Ohio, Florida and other key states where Bush lacks a lead with just 10 days until the election. A poll by Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center, completed Thursday night, found Kerry leading 49 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, with a margin of error of five percentage points [...]
The Republican official said polling for Bush showed him in a weaker position than some published polls have indicated, both nationally and in battlegrounds. In many of the key states, the official said, Bush is below 50 percent, and he is ahead or behind within the margin of sampling error -- a statistical tie.
'There's just no place where they're polling outside the margin of error so they can say, 'We have this state,'' the official said. 'And they know that an incumbent needs to be outside the margin of error.'"
Kos has this quote from an insider in the GOP and from the internal polls in the Bush camp things suck.
"GOP officials who talked to Bush-Cheney campaign leaders said the leaders have grown more worried about Ohio, Florida and other key states where Bush lacks a lead with just 10 days until the election. A poll by Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center, completed Thursday night, found Kerry leading 49 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, with a margin of error of five percentage points [...]
The Republican official said polling for Bush showed him in a weaker position than some published polls have indicated, both nationally and in battlegrounds. In many of the key states, the official said, Bush is below 50 percent, and he is ahead or behind within the margin of sampling error -- a statistical tie.
'There's just no place where they're polling outside the margin of error so they can say, 'We have this state,'' the official said. 'And they know that an incumbent needs to be outside the margin of error.'"
Useful Link and Service
Thanks to Digby Hullabaloo:
Digby says:
"Here's a very helpful service:
My Polling Place.com
It got mine and a couple of friends' right so I assume this data base is correct. On election day, if anyone you know or hear of says they don't know where they are supposed to vote, this site not only gives them an address, you can even get a map.
Pass the word."
Digby says:
"Here's a very helpful service:
My Polling Place.com
It got mine and a couple of friends' right so I assume this data base is correct. On election day, if anyone you know or hear of says they don't know where they are supposed to vote, this site not only gives them an address, you can even get a map.
Pass the word."
A Multitude of Endorsements
Kerry continues to pick up the big dailys. Bush gained the Columbus [OH] paper and Bush also picked up the Denver Post which is a switch from Gore in 2000.
Kerry has picked up 17 papers that backed Bush in 2000, while losing only two Gore papers to Bush.
Kerry now leads Bush 70-58 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and by about 11.9 million to 7.1 million in the circulation of backing papers.
Pittsburg Post-Gazette
There is no doubt that Americans have gone from a generally happy time in the 1990s to four years of deficit, discord and disappointment. We would pose the same question that President Reagan asked famously in the heat of his own campaign: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Relatively few, we think, would answer that with "yes." If your answer is "no" or "not sure," then we have a president for you. The Post-Gazette enthusiastically endorses John Kerry. It's definitely time for a fresh start.
Orlando Sentinel
Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound.
This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush.
Our choice was not dictated by partisanship... Indeed, it has been 40 years since the Sentinel endorsed a Democrat -- Lyndon Johnson -- for president.
Kansas City Star
The country cannot afford four more years of such misguided leadership.
That's why The Kansas City Star strongly endorses John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
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.
AP roundup:
The Des Moines Register, of Des Moines, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24:
"It can be assumed that the next president, be it Bush or Kerry, will do everything in his power to make America safe from terrorism. ... But on the broad range of other issues, Kerry has more to offer. He is in touch with the middle class. He is better informed on health care and has sound ideas for creating jobs."
The Union-Bulletin of Walla Walla, Wash., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 21.
And next a Murdock paper endorse Kerry:
The Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24
"We want leaders to stay the course only when the course is a good one. ... The question that Americans need to ask themselves, going into the voting booth a week from Tuesday, is this: Do you like the direction our nation is heading? If the answer is no, then your vote should be for Sen. John Kerry."
Iowa City Press-Citizen, Iowa City, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:
The Journal Times, Racine, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:
Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
Wausau Daily Herald, Wausau, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
The following rags have continued their Repub Regurg and backed BubbleBoy:
The Austin (Texas) American-Statesman endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
Houston Chronicle endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
The Chronicle of Centralia, Wash., endorsed Bush on Oct. 20
The Express-Times, Easton, Pa., endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
The Denver Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
The Cincinnati Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
The Gazette, Janesville, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
Oshkosh Northwestern, Oshkosh, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 22:
The Detroit News, on Oct. 24 has a very intersting Non endorsement:
"The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy we reject. This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years. ... We will never feel obliged to defend a president whose blunders and misjudgments have hurt the nation. Nor will we settle for an equally bad choice."
Very Interesting!
Kerry has picked up 17 papers that backed Bush in 2000, while losing only two Gore papers to Bush.
Kerry now leads Bush 70-58 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and by about 11.9 million to 7.1 million in the circulation of backing papers.
Pittsburg Post-Gazette
There is no doubt that Americans have gone from a generally happy time in the 1990s to four years of deficit, discord and disappointment. We would pose the same question that President Reagan asked famously in the heat of his own campaign: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Relatively few, we think, would answer that with "yes." If your answer is "no" or "not sure," then we have a president for you. The Post-Gazette enthusiastically endorses John Kerry. It's definitely time for a fresh start.
Orlando Sentinel
Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound.
This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush.
Our choice was not dictated by partisanship... Indeed, it has been 40 years since the Sentinel endorsed a Democrat -- Lyndon Johnson -- for president.
Kansas City Star
The country cannot afford four more years of such misguided leadership.
That's why The Kansas City Star strongly endorses John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
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.
AP roundup:
The Des Moines Register, of Des Moines, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24:
"It can be assumed that the next president, be it Bush or Kerry, will do everything in his power to make America safe from terrorism. ... But on the broad range of other issues, Kerry has more to offer. He is in touch with the middle class. He is better informed on health care and has sound ideas for creating jobs."
The Union-Bulletin of Walla Walla, Wash., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 21.
And next a Murdock paper endorse Kerry:
The Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24
"We want leaders to stay the course only when the course is a good one. ... The question that Americans need to ask themselves, going into the voting booth a week from Tuesday, is this: Do you like the direction our nation is heading? If the answer is no, then your vote should be for Sen. John Kerry."
Iowa City Press-Citizen, Iowa City, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:
The Journal Times, Racine, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:
Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
Wausau Daily Herald, Wausau, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:
The following rags have continued their Repub Regurg and backed BubbleBoy:
The Austin (Texas) American-Statesman endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
Houston Chronicle endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
The Chronicle of Centralia, Wash., endorsed Bush on Oct. 20
The Express-Times, Easton, Pa., endorsed Bush on Oct. 24
The Denver Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
The Cincinnati Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
The Gazette, Janesville, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 23
Oshkosh Northwestern, Oshkosh, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 22:
The Detroit News, on Oct. 24 has a very intersting Non endorsement:
"The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy we reject. This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years. ... We will never feel obliged to defend a president whose blunders and misjudgments have hurt the nation. Nor will we settle for an equally bad choice."
Very Interesting!
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Kerry's the One
The American Conservative Magazine editor's endorsement of Kerry. Yeah that's what I said.
Kerry's the One: "George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies'a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies' temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do". This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support." Read the whole thing.
Kerry's the One: "George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies'a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies' temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do". This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support." Read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)