Ohio Newspapers Make Endorsements

(AP) — Three Ohio daily newspapers endorsed President Bush over the weekend, while one backed Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.

The Columbus Dispatch and The Cincinnati Enquirer on Sunday urged votes for Bush and The (Toledo) Blade endorsed Kerry. On Saturday, The Cincinnati Post endorsed Bush.

The three Bush backers each found fault with Bush's presidency, especially over events that resulted in the war against Iraq.

But the Dispatch said Bush would be more successful than Kerry at pacifying Iraq.

"A victory for Bush will signal to the world and terrorists that the United States is committed to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan," the newspaper said in an editorial. "A Kerry victory will send an ambiguous signal that may raise doubts about American staying power."

The Enquirer, while critical of Bush for not acknowledging mistakes in the intelligence reports that influenced his decision to invade Iraq, said he must move to prevent future terrorist attacks.

"The task now is to capitalize on the gains that have been made, restore frayed alliances and stand prepared for the next attack," the Enquirer said.

The Blade said that at the core of the presidential campaign are unhappy Americans.

"Our country is a sadder place than it was on Inauguration Day, 2001, and we attribute it directly to the incompetence of the president," The Blade said. "John Kerry is a bright man, a serious and skilled practitioner of the art of government."

The Post praised Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks — the war against of Afghanistan and his promise to destroy enemies before they attack again.

"We do not share the contempt for Bush and his decision that has energized his opposition. He is an honorable man who, without precedent to guide him, made a difficult decision to invade Iraq as one early step in a struggle with terrorists," the Post said.

Dispatch:

For president

Despite missteps, Bush is better able to steer nation through difficulties ahead

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Like millions of American voters, The Dispatch is less than enthused about the choices in next week’s presidential election. Neither President Bush nor Sen. John Kerry has built a record that leads to a clear-cut decision.

Since President Bush took office, this newspaper repeatedly has criticized his administration’s borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, which have resulted in massive deficits that weaken America.

The Dispatch also strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, contending the case had not been made that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or posed an imminent threat to this nation.

On the other hand, neither Kerry’s 20-year Senate record nor his shifting positions during the presidential campaign inspire confidence that he would provide the strong, resolute leadership America desperately needs.

Confronted with these disappointments and this choice, The Dispatch believes a second-term George W. Bush would stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead.

The most crucial challenge facing the next president is winning the peace in Iraq. Although the rationale for the Iraq war has been proved wrong, no one should underestimate the stakes now. The United States must see the job through to the end.

For far too long, dictators and terrorists have believed that Americans lack staying power. Friends and enemies of the United States are watching closely to see if the casualties and expense of the war will sap the nation’s will to plant democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. For America, there is no other choice but to succeed. Failure will sow more terrorism and tyranny.

Like it or not, America must stand firm.

Although the president, unfortunately, seems incapable of admitting obvious error, Kerry has not provided a vision of what he would do differently in Iraq. He agrees the United States must be successful in pacifying Iraq. He claims he could be more successful in getting other nations to help shoulder the burden, but that is not realistic.

During the presidential campaign, Kerry has revised his stance on Iraq almost as frequently as there have been shifts in opinion polls. He appears to lack solid convictions on how to proceed.

His vow to repair the damage done by Bush to the nation’s alliances sounds good, but his longstanding ambivalence about deploying American power raises questions about his willingness to defy world opinion if and when that might become necessary in pursuit of U.S. national security. If Bush has been too willing to deploy that power on slim pretexts, Kerry may be too hesitant to unleash it even when justified.

How the rest of the world will view the outcome of the election also plays into the Dispatch’s decision. A victory for Bush will signal to the world and terrorists that the United States is committed to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Kerry victory will send an ambiguous signal that may raise doubts about American staying power.

On domestic issues, voters are confronted with an avowed conservative who spends like a liberal, and a confirmed liberal who promises the fiscal constraint of a conservative.

Bush has vastly expanded the reach of the federal government with the Medicare drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act. The first will add more than $500 billion to the nation’s debt over the next decade. The NCLB, despite its worthy goals, is a vast federal encroachment into education, traditionally a preserve of state and local government. This act unnecessarily pre-empted state initiatives to bring more accountability to elementary and secondary education.

At the same time he has increased the government’s obligations, Bush has slashed taxes, resulting in the highest budget deficits in U.S. history.

This is not a conservative record.

Kerry, whose voting record marks him as one of the most liberal senators in the nation, is painting himself as a fiscal conservative. He promises to cut the deficit in half and to find a way to pay for any new spending that he proposes.

But once in office, with all the expectations of his party and with liberal special interests to appease and reward, would Kerry stick to those promises? This seems unlikely. As Bush and other presidents have demonstrated, excuses for expanding government on credit always are at hand.

Without a track record as a disciplined fiscal steward or as a believer in limited government, Kerry’s promises are suspect.

The next president will appoint many federal judges, and perhaps three or four U.S. Supreme Court justices. The impact on the judiciary will be lasting. The Dispatch believes Bush’s appointments would more likely respect the principles of judicial restraint and separation of powers.

One other factor gives Bush an edge. In a second term, relieved of concern about re-election, presidents look to their legacy. This is when they feel free to take chances and expend political capital. There is no bigger problem facing the nation long term than senior entitlements. Without significant reform, Social Security and Medicare are headed for fiscal collapse under the press of millions of retiring baby boomers.

Kerry, who knows touching these programs is political suicide, has ruled out any change in how they currently operate. But with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, they are unsustainable as they currently operate. Electing Kerry would simply delay action for four more years.

Bush has every reason to take on precisely this sort of challenge, especially if he hopes to ensure that history remembers him for something other than the Iraq mess.

If Bush wins and Republicans retain control of Congress, the stars finally may be aligned in a way that allows the nation to confront the entitlement goliath.

If he is elected, Bush should make good on his pledge to reduce the deficit by half. Better yet, he should eliminate it. The president refuses to acknowledge mistakes, and that is unlikely to change in a second term. But he still should correct them.

He should put enough troops and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done. He should ask the American people to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that, even if that means paying more taxes.

Since Sept. 11, Americans have been ready and willing to sacrifice to avenge the attacks and prevent future ones. Bush shouldn’t hesitate any longer: Enlist them in the fight. That might be one way to heal the deep division that now afflicts the country.

After all, four years ago, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Perhaps more than any other, he should make good on that promise.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Enquirer presidential endorsement

George Bush for president

Editorial

Four years ago George W. Bush was elected by the narrowest of margins. He promised to unite the country with "compassionate conservatism."

Then, as the President is wont to say, "9/11 happened."

The terrorist attack that killed more than 3,000 Americans changed our outlook, changed our sense of security and it most certainly changed our president.

The next four years will require a president who has the fortitude not to waver in the face of terror. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both strong and patriotic men, but we believe the times call for America to be consistent. For that reason we support Bush.

Wartime leader

Sept. 11 forced Bush to become a wartime leader. The days immediately after the attack were the finest moments of his presidency. He spoke as the leader of all Americans, expressing the nation's horror, grief and rage at the cowardly attack. The president declared war on terror - and the nation and Congress enlisted in that cause.

We invaded Iraq, convinced that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and meant to use them against us or give them to others who would. That intelligence was simply wrong. While Saddam's forces were quickly overrun, no such weapons have ever been found. The world is a better place with Saddam deposed, but the long-term cost of doing that is a bill that America will be paying far into the future.

John Kerry agrees that America is committed to achieving stability in Iraq, but says he would recreate the kind of multi-lateral coalition that fought the first Gulf War to do it. How? Kerry suggests that just having a new face in the White House would bring new allies to our side. We disagree. France, Germany and most of the Arab states are not going to support us unless they are guaranteed significant roles in the new Iraq. We did not topple Saddam just so we could divide up the country as spoils of war. Our most important ally in Iraq must be Iraq. France and Germany have said they will not send troops under any circumstances.

We wish the president were willing to acknowledge the mistakes that were made, and to hold accountable those in his administration who made them. But other nations and past administrations all believed Saddam had the weapons and was willing to use them.

The task now is to capitalize on the gains that have been made, restore frayed alliances and stand prepared for the next attack.

Homeland security

At home, the Department of Homeland Security, the now-accepted delays and inspections at the airports and the USA Patriot Act all resulted from 9/11. The latter is an over-compensation that is in need of correction. Kerry has argued persuasively that terrorists are targeting our way of life as well as our lives. We agree with him. Victories over terrorists will be worthless if we give up basic American freedoms to do it. But while the senator calls for more first responders, more port inspectors and more police, he is not very specific on how he will pay for them. He also ignores the major strides that have been made in improving the communication and coordination of our intelligence and security agencies under Bush, assets that deteriorated under the previous Democratic administration.

Economic policy

On economic policy we believe the Bush tax-cut program is the best method of encouraging investment and job growth. Kerry has said he will repeal the Bush tax cut for those making more than $200,000 per year and use that money to fund his new programs. He says that will affect only the rich, people like himself and the president. He's wrong. The over-$200,000 category isn't just "the rich." It's also the bulk of the small and independent business owners in America - a segment of the economy that creates many of the new jobs we need. Nor would repealing this cut raise enough money for all of the programs Kerry has proposed.

Kerry has made much of outsourcing and his claim that the Bush administration provides tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. This so-called tax break has been in place for several Republican and Democratic administrations to protect American companies doing business overseas from having to pay taxes here and abroad. A likely consequence of Kerry's vow to close this "loophole" would be for companies to sell off overseas assets, resulting in the loss of a tremendous number of support jobs here.

The president deserves credit for his "No Child Left Behind" education initiative, which he managed to pass with bipartisan support in Congress. While the plan is not perfect, and can certainly be improved upon, it offers accountability and empowerment. Kerry's program, in contrast, concentrates on providing more money to schools, without insisting on the accountability.

Retirement and health care

The same can be said for the president's approach to the problems of Social Security and health care. His proposals for private investment accounts and health savings plans give a measure of control and responsibility in these areas to the people using them.

Kerry proposes $1,000 reductions in family health care premiums, cheaper prescriptions, and "high-quality" coverage for 95 percent of America, including every child. He has offered little on Social Security except to say the Bush plan would leave retirees vulnerable. But the Bush plan would not break faith with those who now depend on Social Security. Catastrophic health problems and secure retirements are things we all worry about. But Kerry's proposals are nothing but incredibly expensive promises that he offers no realistic way of paying for.

This election may be as close as the last. That means there will be a sharp and painful division in this country. To achieve our goals of security at home and stability abroad, our president must couple the constancy of his first term with the compassion that he has long professed. To be effective, that compassion must be used to encourage compromise. We believe George W. Bush has the strength to meet this challenge and the others that will confront America in the next four years.

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.