with friends like these... "I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good."--Andrew Sullivan, endorsing John Kerry, The New Republic, Oct. 26 "I can't remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn't have much use for Al Gore either, but I don't remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name. . . . I can't persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks."--Mark Brown, endorsing John Kerry, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 27 "I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."--Jacob Weisberg, endorsing John Kerry, Slate, Oct. 26 "Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress's substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign. If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton's treasury secretary. His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton's talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research. The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as "a mistake". On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies."-- The Economist, endorsing John Kerry October 28.
Not interested enough to verify the authenticity or seriousness of your post but, I do find it interesting that even with feelings like these about Kerry, they choose not to vote for Bush. What does that say about Bush?
Actually since Andrew Sullivan is pretty conservative it is significant that he is endorsing Kerry. What did you expect? A sudden conversion wherein he thinks Kerry is the greatest candidate of all time? Like many a thinking conservative Sullivan has decided Bush is just too radical and dangerous. Sullivan supported the war among other conservative positions. From one of Sullivan's columns. *********** Does that make Kerry right and Bush wrong? On the most fundamental matter, ie the war, I think Bush has been basically right: right to see the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and Islamist terror; right to realise that the French would never have acquiesced to ridding the world of Saddam; right to endorse the notion of pre-emption in a world of new and grave dangers. Much of the hard work has now been done. Nobody seriously believes that Bush will start another war. And in some ways Kerry may be better suited to the difficult task of nation building than Bush. At home Bush has done much to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government and he has been almost criminally reckless in his conduct of the war. He and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing WMDs. He and America will be hard put to regain the moral high ground after Abu Ghraib. The argument that Kerry must make is that he can continue the war but without Bush’s polarising recklessness. And at home he must reassure Americans that he is the centrist candidate, controlled neither by the foaming Michael Moore left nor by the vitriolic religious right. Put all that together and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly towards the notion that Kerry may be the right man — and the conservative choice — for a difficult and perilous time. link
basso, did you happen to see the Denver Post's "endorsement" of Bush? http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~8382~2484208,00.html
So he's been endorsed by the New Republic and The Economist? Not bad. Pretty stinging, left-handed endorsements there. These guys must hold the president in utter contempt.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=43988450 Russian President Vladimir Putin wants George W Bush to be re-elected, Osama bin Laden undoubtedly wants him to be re-elected, and the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council has just endorsed him for re-election, so it's hardly surprising that one of my sons has done the same. He must remain nameless, of course, but he has given me permission to quote his exact words on the subject of Mr Bush's candidacy: "He has sown the wind; let him reap the whirlwind." This nameless offspring of mine has never worked for the KGB, planned terrorist attacks or been nominated as a member of the Axis of Evil, but he does share with the three gentlemen above a rather Machiavellian turn of mind. His point is that Iraq will go to hell and the US economy will run into heavy weather in the next four years no matter who is president. Those things are already practically set in stone-so let the man who actually caused them carry the can. . . .
I agree with the tenor of the "endorsements." I don't find Kerry particularly impressive, but I view the election as such: You have a choice of two houseguests. Kerry's going to come over and crash on your couch for the next four years. Otherwise, he's one of thoses guests whose presence is so innocuous that it's frequently unnoticed. Bush, on the other hand, is going to gradually pawn all your appliances (he won't tell you - you'll just realize that stuff is missing), eat all your peanut butter and never replace it himself (and a bevy of other annoyances), and there's a very good chance he's going to burn down your house before he leaves. He's not going to offer to fix it either. He's just going to leave. In all reality, you don't want either of these men as a houseguest. But, given the choice between the two, and knowing the likely result, there's only one reasonable option. [You can quote me, bet me, whatever - Kerry sucks, but four more years of the Bush Administration will be an unmitigated disaster for the United States (but not for the Bushies - gee, how does that work?)] So, I can understand that unenthusiastic "endorsements" - they're backed up by a very palpable, and very real, damage estimate of the alternative course.
One wishes more "thinking conservatives" would voice their dissent before the term itself truly becomes an oxymoron.
http://www.greenbaynewschron.com/page.html?article=128269 Endorsements: Kerry, because he isn't Bush Tom Brooker, News-Chronicle editor Editorial By Tom Brooker The amazing thing about the reign of George W. Bush is that nearly half the populace wants him to return for another four years. With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, it seems you can fool half of the people all of the time. Truly, the Bush II presidency has been nothing short of disastrous. Real conservatives are fuming over the staggering debt this administration is piling up with no letup in sight. Bush has bumbled again and again on issues of foreign policy, taking us to war in Iraq under false pretenses and then botching the recovery process so badly that nobody seems to know how or when we will be able to get out. Under George W. Bush, polluters have been given a virtual free ride (not coincidentally, his first EPA secretary resigned), affordable health care is less affordable to fewer people (and for millions not at all), Social Security trudges on toward insolvency, decent-paying jobs are vanishing and the breakthrough promise of embryonic stem-cell research has been stymied. Instead of addressing issues that sweep across the heartland of the nation - tax equity, health care, retirement security, energy dependence, job creation - this president has spent the bulk of his effort giving handouts to megacorporations and pandering to the radical right and its foul brew of gay-bashing, guns and God. This is a man who has held the least amount of news conferences of any president since the dawn of television. This is a man who fought to the highest court in the land to keep secret the nefarious, closed-door meetings on the nation's energy policy. This is a man who tried to stop the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Twin Towers tragedy and its backdrop. And, worst of all, this is a president who has taken responsibility for nothing that has gone wrong on his watch, not the torture at Abu Ghraib, not the falsehood of nuclear weapons in Iraq, not the beatings and denial of legal rights at Guantanamo, none of it. George Bush, however, is not the Prince of Darkness. He deserves credit for the nuclear disarmament of Libya, for gains made in Afghanistan, for providing a firm hand during the 9-11 crisis. And no president, regardless of party or policy, could have averted the economic tumble caused by the dot-com collapse and the fall of the World Trade Center. No, Bush is not, in his own words, an "evil-doer." But he had the opportunity to be a beacon of hope for a besieged nation and instead turned out to be simply a dim bulb. Why this has not been enunciated more clearly and passionately by Bush's chief opponent, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, is a mystery. Perhaps he has more class and that's just not his style; perhaps he feels his actions speak more eloquently. Indeed, Kerry has spent most of his Senate career as a low-profile, behind-the-scenes guy. His most notable efforts have been the investigation and resolution of MIA identities in Vietnam and Cambodia, and he led the probes that unearthed the labyrinthine corruption posed by the BCCI and Iran-Contra scandals. Granted, that's a relatively thin resume for the presidency - but it's far more than what the current holder of the office brought with him four years ago. Bush and his government of big business, by big business and for big business need to go. Kerry proposes sound government where it's needed, when it's needed. It's needed here, and it's needed now.
Some parts left out of the Economist endorsement. "This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush." Why is the London-based magazine endorsing a candidate in an American election? "The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total."
Just an aging rock star. We remain a land of great promise but we need to move America towards the fulfillment of the promises that she has made; economic justice, civil rights, protection of the environment, a living wage, respect for others, and humility in exercising our power at home and around the world. These are not impossible ideals, they are achievable goals with a strong leadership and the will of a vigilant and informed American people. These core issues of America's identity are what's at stake on Nov. 2nd. I believe that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards understand these important issues and are prepared to help our country move forward. America is not always right -- that is a fairytale we tell our children. As John Edwards said, struggle and heartbreak will always be with us. America is not always right, but America always should be true and it is in seeking her truths, both the good, and the bad, we find a deeper patriotism, a more authentic experience as citizens, and we find the power that is embedded only in truth to change our world for the better. That is how our soul as a nation and as a people is revealed. And it is what we are fighting for on Nov 2nd. So, we've got some work to do between now and election day. If you share our concerns find the best way to express yourself, roll up your sleeves and do it. Remember the country we carry in our hearts is waiting. Bruce Springsteen
this might appeal to the bammaslammer far-right nuts out there, one of your champions, Bob Smith of New Hamshire is voting for Kerry Link
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_el_pr/yale_endorsement NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Yale's undergraduate student newspaper on Friday chose one alumnus over another in the race for the White House, endorsing John Kerry (news - web sites). The Yale Daily News gave President Bush (news - web sites), class of 1968, good marks for handling the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and their aftermath, but it faulted him for his Iraq (news - web sites) war policy and handling of domestic issues. Kerry, the Democratic challenger who graduated from Yale in 1966, has his faults, the newspaper acknowledged. But it said it trusted Kerry to be fair and thoughtful. "Much has been made of the fact that whoever wins next Tuesday, a Yalie will occupy the Oval Office. Yet we see stark differences in how Bush and Kerry live up to the ideals of their alma mater. ... "Yale prides itself on rewarding intellectual curiosity and fostering open debate. And though the White House is not a seminar room, we value a president's willingness to think critically about his beliefs and subject his proposals to scrutiny," the newspaper wrote. "In Bush, we see a president who has been constrained by stubbornly refusing to admit his mistakes or entertain alternative ideas. But in these uncertain times, we need a president with the ability to be both strong and open-minded — a president like John Kerry," it wrote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6364551/site/newsweek WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By James Roosevelt Jr. Newsweek Oct. 29 - Last May, I walked through the magnificent new World War II Memorial that was soon to be dedicated on the National Mall in Washington. The architecture, sculpture and carved quotations were impressive. But it was the faces of the retired veterans and the depth of feeling in the eyes of their wives and widows that was most moving. As I watched them read the words of inspiration from the war's leaders etched into the stone walls, I thought of my father, who served during the war as a Marine in Carlson's Raiders. His father, my grandfather, was making his own contribution: as president of the United States. Today, I remember the words etched into that memorial while I read the news from Iraq. The contrast is stark. This summer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's name and legacy were invoked by almost a dozen speakers at the Republican National Convention. But George W. Bush is not, and never will be, a president like FDR. . . . A War President isn't self-proclaimed. A president becomes a true War President by leadership that inspires followers at home and abroad. And most importantly, a War President never loses sight of the goals of true peace with honor. For Bush to grant himself this title is an insult to my grandfather and the inspired leaders who led this country in wars that were just. To put it simply, George W. Bush has not earned the right to be called a War President.
I thought these were two very good points to make. To swipe some Bush rhetoric... Kerry may be the wrong man at the right time.
James Buchanan had to be the worst. (as me and IROC try to out quote each other in 4 diffrent threads )
