[Lerkfish]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...kerryed27.html

Friday, August 27, 2004 - Page updated at 01:17 A.M.


Editorial
Kerry for President
AP

Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.

The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.

The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.

The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.

A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.

This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.

Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.

Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.

In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.

Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.

On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.

We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.

Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.

There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.

Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.

Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.

[Timo]

I understood everything in the editorial, except for the part where they said they had endorsed Bush in '00. That I didn't understand.

[Zimphire]

Someone close the window... it feels a bit shilly in here.

[zigzag]

Sounds pretty sensible to me. Wall Street is having its doubts as well:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ce667ab6-f7...00e2511c8.html

[Zimphire]

OMG THE MEDIA IS VOTING FOR KERRY!?!?

This world has turned upside down! I mean before they have always voted for the Right!

This is a shock!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG THE MEDIA IS VOTING FOR KERRY!?!?

This world has turned upside down! I mean before they have always voted for the Right!

This is a shock!

LOL. My sentiments exactly

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG THE MEDIA IS VOTING FOR KERRY!?!?

This world has turned upside down! I mean before they have always voted for the Right!

This is a shock!

The media votes?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
The media votes?

They influence votes.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
The media votes?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
I understood everything in the editorial, except for the part where they said they had endorsed Bush in '00. That I didn't understand.

:0)

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
They influence votes.

Don't tell me, tell Zimphire. He's the one who said that the media votes

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Sounds pretty sensible to me. Wall Street is having its doubts as well:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ce667ab6-f7...00e2511c8.html

thanks for the link! I especially found this interesting:

But one senior Wall Street figure, once talked of as a possible Bush cabinet member, said that he and other prominent Republicans had been raising money with increasing reluctance. “Many are doing so with a heavy heart and some not at all.” He cited foreign policy and the ballooning federal deficit as Wall Street Republicans' main concerns.

.........A Republican in the financial services industry concurs. “Many of them may be maxed out,” he said, referring to campaign contributions that have hit the legal ceiling, “but they are backing away from Bush.”

This highlights what I think of as the conflict between the paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives. Fiscal responsibility is an abandoned republican ideal in this current administration. That's just one example.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Don't tell me, tell Zimphire. He's the one who said that the media votes

Funny, dc knew what I was speaking about. Of COURSE I wasn't speaking LITERALLY.

But some people you have to spell things out for. I didn't think you were one of those people Logic. But I guess you just proved me wrong.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
They influence votes.

In that case, I'm sure you're going to vote for Kerry, then, right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

This highlights what I think of as the conflict between the paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives. Fiscal responsibility is an abandoned republican ideal in this current administration. That's just one example.

The MAIN responsibility of our gov is not to balance the budget. The MAIN responsibility is to protect it's citizens. That means one doesn't cut the very thing PROTECTING our citizens to balance the budget.

BTW "paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives" LAWL!

Do the paleoconservatives predate the dinosaurs?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In that case, I'm sure you're going to vote for Kerry, then, right?

They wont be influences those who know who they are voting for. They are going after the swing voters with their FUD. Come on Lerk, I thought you knew how these things worked.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They wont be influences those who know who they are voting for. They are going after the swing voters with their FUD. Come on Lerk, I thought you knew how these things worked.

So it was FUD when they endorsed Bush in 2000? Noted.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
So it was FUD when they endorsed Bush in 2000? Noted.

Did they make a write up saying they were, while bashing Gore? If so yes.

[dreilly1]

This is the first post that Lerkfish has made since his accident that prompted me to take him off ignore and read it.

I do think there's some truth to it. The George W. Bush I remember from the 2000 election cycle is much different than the one I see today:

- He was an advocate for not getting involved as much in international affairs, or at least for not intervening in the affairs other countries. He wasn't a true Isolationist, but definitely leaned more in that direction than Gore.
- He insisted there was enough money to provide tax cuts and still balance the budget.
- He pledged to be "a uniter, not a divider".

I could go on, and I probably should find some quotes to back up my assertions, but I'm at work right now and don't have much time to research this. I think I'm remembering it all correctly.

The terrorist attacks were an inflection point in his presidency, and I would expect some of his priorities to change after an event of that magnitude, but it seems like the entire tone of his presidency changed. It made me wonder whether he had any intention of sticking to the statements he made before the election at all, and the terrorist attacks provided an easier way to back out of them.

I don't think you can question whether or not he kept his promises from the 2000 election. To me, it's clear he did not: we have troops who forcefully inserted themselves into two countries overseas (in one case, without the broad international backing that accompanied so many of our other recent expeditions), we have a huge federal deficit, and we have a country that is politically even more divided than in 2000. The real question is, do the circumstances of the last four years warrant letting him off the hook for that?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny, dc knew what I was speaking about. Of COURSE I wasn't speaking LITERALLY.

Fair enough. I'll remember not to take you literally from now on

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did they make a write up saying they were, while bashing Gore? If so yes.

I honestly am not sure of your point here?
newspaper editorial departments endorse candidates. In order to do so, it may require contrasting the views or policies of both candidates to explain why they decided as they did.

If they just said: VOTE KERRY without explaining their reasoning, then they are no better than a candidate sign in a yard.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Sounds pretty sensible to me. Wall Street is having its doubts as well:

Or so the author of that article claims. I have a bunch of friends and family members who work on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial district. Do you know why they aren't contributing to Bush? Hint: Lerk's quote was right one...

A Republican in the financial services industry concurs. “Many of them may be maxed out,” he said, referring to campaign contributions that have hit the legal ceiling

[dreilly1]

A Republican in the financial services industry concurs. “Many of them may be maxed out,” he said, referring to campaign contributions that have hit the legal ceiling

I interpreted the article to mean that these contributors had maxed out early in the campaign, but are not happy with the direction the campaign is taking, and would not actively support it anymore.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Or so the author of that article claims. I have a bunch of friends and family members who work on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial district. Do you know why they aren't contributing to Bush? Hint: Lerk's quote was right one...

interesting edit...you left out: ", “but they are backing away from Bush."

[Lerkfish]

If some republicans are having problems with the way Bush ran, his preelection platform, and what he has actually done (or not done), and how those two do not coincide, I don't think that's too impossible to believe.
Some people are actually able to filter out partisan loyalty and look at results/nonresults.

for example, two of the reasons I voted for Clinton the first time was he was supportive of gays in the military and he was committed to improving the healthcare system.
When neither of those came to fruition, I was disappointed and could discuss that I didn't like the way those issues were handled. I don't understand why its wrong for republicans to come to similar conclusions.

Why is it considered impossible or shameful for people in your own ranks to have differing opinions of your candidate?

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG THE MEDIA IS VOTING FOR KERRY!?!?

This world has turned upside down! I mean before they have always voted for the Right!

This is a shock!

Jesus H. Christ - read the damn thing! Be careful though, you just might learn something. They (the Seattle Times) endorsed bush in 00 and have since changed their position because of his policies and actions.

edit:

p.s. The media doesn't have voting rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If some republicans are having problems with the way Bush ran, his preelection platform, and what he has actually done (or not done), and how those two do not coincide, I don't think that's too impossible to believe.

9/11 changed alot! Bush HAD to change his focus, lets not forget that. You may not like the way he handled the situation, but it was something that could NOT be ignored and forced certain domestic issued to be put on the back burner. I really wish people would quit blaming bush for everything without recognizing the fact that on 9/11 terrorists catapulted the US into conflict.

{quote]Some people are actually able to filter out partisan loyalty and look at results/nonresults.[/quote]

And you are making that claim for yourself. The most partisan man on this board who posts non-stop propoganda for the dems and kerry. LMAO

for example, two of the reasons I voted for Clinton the first time was he was supportive of gays in the military and he was committed to improving the healthcare system.
When neither of those came to fruition, I was disappointed and could discuss that I didn't like the way those issues were handled. I don't understand why its wrong for republicans to come to similar conclusions.

Who says we don't? The key is that we look at the big picture and imposing a bit of reality on the current climate. We are at war. A dedication to the effort, whether you support Bush or not is paramount to victory and minimizes death on both sides. Constantly protesting the war effort and creating road block to criticize and attack bush hurts the war effort and causes the loss of life. It is called loyalty and team work!

Why is it considered impossible or shameful for people in your own ranks to have differing opinions of your candidate?

It is not.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Constantly protesting the war effort and creating road block to criticize and attack bush hurts the war effort and causes the loss of life. It is called loyalty and team work!

sorry. I strongly disagree. What your are suggesting is unamerican and fascist.

My objection to the war does NOT cause the loss of life...the WAR itself does that, it doesn't need me to accomplish that.

when I said: Why is it considered impossible or shameful for people in your own ranks to have differing opinions of your candidate?

you said: It is not.

then why do you, in the same post, contend that protesting the war effort and criticizing bush causes loss of life? do you even read your own posts?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry. I strongly disagree. What your are suggesting is unamerican and fascist.

My objection to the war does NOT cause the loss of life...the WAR itself does that, it doesn't need me to accomplish that.

No, it does. When you spend a significant percentage of your life trying to defame Bush, you are taking the focus off of the war effort. While the administration is spending time trying to fend off unwarranted attacks from the likes of Michael Moore, Kerry, et al., they can't focus their attention on saving lives. At what point do you hang up your partisanhip and support our troops instead of demonizing them for doing their job? Abu Gharib has become a crying call for liberals to attack the war effort. Some fu'ked up sh!t happened their, but it did not warrant the attention it received.

In other words, your anti-war rhetoric does a disservice to the military and its efforts. Private smith doesn't need to spend his time wondering if the war is just...he needs to spend his time worrying about a bullet in his ass and everyone elses.

I submit that it is quite unamerican and facist to undermine the interests of this nation in an effort to push ones personal agenda.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
then why do you, in the same post, contend that protesting the war effort and criticizing bush causes loss of life? do you even read your own posts?

You are not in my ranks.

But clearly, you misunderstand or you are starting to notice the holes in your arguments if you are going to quibble over the above. Repubs disagree all of the time...it is a big party with differnet ideologies. That is why it is not impossible or shameful for disagreement. It happens all of the time. I think Bush is a horrible public speaker. I hate bushes lax policy on mexican immigration. But, when it comes down to it...I believe he is currently the best man for the job...definately better than jfk. And, considering we are at war...since American men and women are in harms way...I choose to support the war effort and support the brave soldiers who defend the United States and protect our interests.

The truth is, libs want to see a failure in the war effort...that is the only way you can defeat Bush. I just pray that the 'swing' voters realize this and declare to the world that the United States will NOT cave in to terrorists.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I submit that it is quite unamerican and facist to undermine the interests of this nation in an effort to push ones personal agenda.

I agree. when does Bush intend to stop?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You are not in my ranks.

of that I am eternally grateful.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
of that I am eternally grateful.

You need a sense of humor, Lerk

[djohnson]

Here is the part I have a huge problem with:

back-door draft of American reservists

Last time I checked the reservists were part of the military, so how can they be "drafted"???

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree. when does Bush intend to stop?

When does Kerry intend to stop?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Here is the part I have a huge problem with:



Last time I checked the reservists were part of the military, so how can they be "drafted"???

When they signed up, they realized that this issue could become a reality. It isn't a backdoor draft persay, it is a reality of military service in a time of war.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Or so the author of that article claims. I have a bunch of friends and family members who work on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial district. Do you know why they aren't contributing to Bush? Hint: Lerk's quote was right one...

DING DING

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry. I strongly disagree. What your are suggesting is unamerican and fascist.

Get off it Lerk.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
When they signed up, they realized that this issue could become a reality. It isn't a backdoor draft persay, it is a reality of military service in a time of war.

The same reality as knowing there is a chance that you will die when you sign up with the military?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:


You need a sense of humor, Lerk

I have one..I was laughing at you.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I have one..I was laughing at you.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did they make a write up saying they were, while bashing Gore? If so yes.

"Bashing"? Why is it that even the most sober criticism of the administration, by an entity that had previously endorsed him, is characterized as "Bush-bashing"? Do you realize that you've used the terms "bashing" and "shilly" without addressing a single point in the editorial? This is the very definition of knee-jerk.

It remains a depressing fact that even the slightest criticism of the administration around here is automatically characterized by some as "Bush-bashing."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"Bashing"? Why is it that even the most sober criticism of the administration, by an entity that had previously endorsed him, is characterized as "Bush-bashing"? Do you realize that you've used the terms "bashing" and "shilly" without addressing a single point in the editorial? This is the very definition of knee-jerk.

It remains a depressing fact that even the slightest criticism of the administration around here is automatically characterized by some as "Bush-bashing."

exactly. Its as if the mere fact of being in the republican party absolves the candidates of any normal scrutiny . Does one go the market and NOT compare the produce before buying?.

[Capt.McDuff]

I don't know of anyone who starts millions of threads in a forum whining about the defective lettuce.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
I don't know of anyone who starts millions of threads in a forum whining about the defective lettuce.

\

I've never know a head of lettuce THIS defective.

[kjb]

Originally posted by dcolton:
9/11 changed alot! Bush HAD to change his focus, lets not forget that. You may not like the way he handled the situation, but it was something that could NOT be ignored and forced certain domestic issued to be put on the back burner. I really wish people would quit blaming bush for everything without recognizing the fact that on 9/11 terrorists catapulted the US into conflict.

I do think you have a point here, dcolton. I agree that the 9/11 attacks required a change of focus for the administration. What I'm confused about is the administrations change of focus on traditionally conservative (and prevoiusly stated positions by the administration) values such as states rights (gay marriage), and fiscal conservatism (record deficits). The problem I believe this administration faces is that it hasn't lived up to it's campaign promises, nor has it been as effective in the aftermath of 9/11 as it, and average everyday Americans, might have hoped. Yes, there has been no terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists on American soil since 9/11, and yes, acheiving one's platform goals after a staggering event like 9/11 is extremely challenging, but no matter what side of the political fence you sit on (or if you straddle it!!), you have to admit that the current situations- here in the States, in Iraq and the "postponed" destruction of al Qaeda- are less than ideal.

It's strange how much the Democrats have missed their opportunity to tack the flip-flopper label on Bush by comparing his record after four years to his claims and goals during the 2000 campaign.

[gorgonzola]

Can we stay away from these wiseass one-liners when someone at least seems to be starting a reasonable discussion? Crap posts like "Someone close the window... it feels a bit shilly in here." need to go away. People on both sides do it, but this is a good example of this kind of asinine post that usually serves to annoy others and (often) ultimately derail the thread.