Posted on 10/16/2004 7:57:22 PM PDT by tdice7
Recapture the spirit Re-electing George W. Bush is the best answer to a nation's questions
Oct. 17, 2004 12:00 AM
The essential question of the 2004 presidential election is what will become of Iraq. And the essential answer is that it must be transformed into a peaceful and free nation.
Domestic policy is important, certainly, and there is much to do.
The health care system is in critical condition. Immigration must be resolved with a commitment to decency, humanity and finality. The listing ship of Social Security must be righted. And the appointment of new Supreme Court justices - the stealth issue of the 2004 campaign - looms in the shadows. advertisement
But all domestic issues pale before the resolution of the war in Iraq, which, right or wrong, defines this election for a huge percentage of voters. It should surprise no one that "security moms" are the swing voters of 2004. America is at war.
George W. Bush, whose decision following Sept. 11, 2001, to take the war on terrorism beyond America's borders became the defining choice of his presidency, is the necessary choice to move Iraq toward stability and modernity. Baghdad may not have been the fulcrum of terrorism before the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But it is now.
It is on that ground that the war - and the peace - must be won.
And it is on that ground that The Arizona Republic recommends the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.
A critical juncture in an epochal war is no time to change a president, particularly if the option is one whose position regarding that war is elusive.
For all his attributes, Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, is incapable of setting out a convincing plan of action in Iraq.
We can only guess where a Kerry presidency will lead. Anti-war activists choose to believe he will find a way to bring the troops home quickly. Internationalists choose to believe he will prevail upon the leaders of Europe, who so viscerally opposed ousting Saddam, to help rebuild that nation. Isolationists opt to believe he will abandon the concept of "war" altogether and pursue terrorism as would a prosecutor chasing down criminals.
It is not credible that a man who has derided nations like Great Britain, Australia and Poland as the "coalition of the bribed and the coerced" can step forward to lead that or any group of nations in Iraq. It is not credible that a man who has decried events in Iraq as the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place can set that war on the right path. Contempt is not a plan.
Obviously, Bush has made serious errors in judgments regarding Iraq. Appalling weaknesses in planning served to hamstring Iraqi reconstruction and gave the terrorists their opportunity to wreak havoc.
This newspaper was sufficiently outraged by the disgusting revelations of Abu Ghraib prison to call for Bush's secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to step down. To their credit, however, Bush and Rumsfeld acted with dispatch to correct the awful malevolence that allowed Abu Ghraib to occur.
Despite their many missteps in Iraq, the recent events in Afghanistan - notably the successful elections there - give hope that a new day may yet dawn in the Middle East.
Domestically, we would expect President Bush to commit to recapturing some semblance of unity in his own shockingly divided nation.
Should he be re-elected, Bush may start with those Supreme Court nominees. Bush vowed no "litmus test" regarding social issues like abortion. We would hold him to that promise.
The unmerciful vilification of Bush by environmentalists is largely unreasonable, in our view. Lawsuits against polluters have declined under Bush because he has opted to pursue "carrot" rather than "stick" compliance policies. They are policies that should be encouraged, not mocked. His Healthy Forest Act holds out considerable promise for the parched Western forests, including those of Arizona.
The accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind education act have helped improve many failing schools. Indeed, there is good reason why Bush repeatedly referenced education during the presidential debates. It is because a sound education truly is the key to a strong economy.
As for the Bush tax cuts, it may overstate their importance to claim that the cuts triggered the ongoing economic recovery. But they certainly made the downturn shorter and shallower. And their long-term promise is for a far more robust economy than we otherwise would enjoy.
By contrast, a group of 386 economists - including Arizona State University's Edward C. Prescott, a co-winner of this year's Nobel Prize in economics - have decried the economic proposals offered by Kerry. If implemented, the economists warned earlier this week, the Kerry policies "would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people."
Immediately following the terrorist destruction on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was widely hailed for his decisive leadership - for taking steps that truly united the nation.
We would like to see a second term that recaptures that spirit.
This is good news for this sad sundevil (USC 45 ASU 7 ugh)
All right, Arizona! A big thank you from the state of MD.
Excellent post!
I wish it were "Arizona Bay". (Bye-bye Cali!)
I can't believe that the Arizona People's Republic got it right. Long ago Senator Quayle's family owned it. The earlier name was the Arizona Republican. Now it mostly reads like the San Francisco Leftwing Times.
This is ominous for Kerry. Hugh and series. My beeber is stuned.
Wow! I just returned home after a 6 month contract in AZ. I was sure the Republic was pro Kerry. Glad I was wrong.
"can't believe that the Arizona People's Republic got it right. Long ago Senator Quayle's family owned it. The earlier name was the Arizona Republican. Now it mostly reads like the San Francisco Leftwing Times."
I always thought the Republic was slightly pro-bush (at least by MSM standards, meaning that it doesn't express communist views)
FREE REPUBLIC endorses BUSH.
Questions: Is this the Tucson paper or the Phoenix paper? And, is this a Gannett owned paper.
Nice.
This is a Phoenix-based paper
I wonder why the MSM hasn't picked this up. Evidently Kerry deserves front page exposure for his endorsement from the New York Lies, I mean Times. /sarcasm off
The Republic is Phoenix. The (Red) Star is Tucson. No way would the Star endorse President Bush.
Exhibit A:
Obviously, Bush has made serious errors in judgments regarding Iraq. Appalling weaknesses in planning served to hamstring Iraqi reconstruction and gave the terrorists their opportunity to wreak havoc.
Exhibit B:
This newspaper was sufficiently outraged by the disgusting revelations of Abu Ghraib prison to call for Bush's secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to step down.
Mandatory MSM bites to still keep their cocktail party invitations flowing.
I lived in AZ for three years, and can attest to a definite liberal slant by the Republic. I would have given you odds they would endorse Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry should be worried if a paper like this is endorsing President Bush.
Here's another newspaper endorsement to add to the newspaper endorsement thread. :) I should've bookmarked it though. :/
This is a good endorsement from a left leaning newspaper.
Bush's strong showing at the debate in Tempe must've sent the Libs at the Republic over the edge. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.