Posted on 10/25/2004 7:09:05 AM PDT by RushCrush
Re-elect President Bush
Gazette editorial
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Election Day is a defining day in America's democracy, and the votes cast on Nov. 2 are no less than an investment in America's future. That's why voters, when selecting the next president of the United States, need to choose the leader who will best ensure a healthy, safe and economically secure future.
It is for these reasons The Gazette endorses the re-election of Republican George W. Bush for president.
Bush's accomplishments often get lost in a fog of partisanship. He engineered significant tax cuts that benefited not just the wealthy but virtually every Iowan and American. Child tax credits, elimination of the marriage penalty and reducing the lowest income tax rate delivered very real relief to low- and middle-income families.
Reforms to Medicare undoubtedly spared several rural Iowa hospitals that were in dire need of improved reimbursement formulas. And, for the first time, the poorest Americans will have Medicare coverage for prescription drugs.
Yes, there is much Bush could have done differently in the past four years. He has made major mistakes, particularly in military affairs but on domestic fronts, too. And he's compounded those mistakes by failing to admit that he has been anything less than perfect -- an astoundingly arrogant position for any person.
For some, those mistakes will be sufficient grounds for turning Bush out of office, regardless of the merits of Democratic candidate John Kerry.
But at this juncture, Americans should not be looking at the accomplishments and failures of the last four years as much as they should be looking ahead to determine who is better suited to solve the country's problems.
Bush would guide the nation with tax policies and leadership plans that are far surer to set America on a path toward economic progress. While Kerry should be admired for his public service and his passion to make America a better place for the next generation, his liberal voting record and murky promises leave us too uncertain about American's future with a Kerry White House.
Bush has pledged to lead fights to simplify the tax code and reform Social Security. Kerry would do nothing with either. Bush has embraced much of the 9/11 Commission report and appears committed to intelligence community improvements and homeland security. The president has remained committed to accountability and improvement in the nation's public education system, even as Democrats have demagoged the No Child Left Behind legislation they once overwhelmingly supported. Bush would be far friendlier to the nation's small businesses and job-creating corporations, particularly on issues such as the estate tax. Things such as environmental reforms Kerry touts sound good in sound bites but the details often show a stifling effect on commerce.
To his credit, Kerry has raised awareness on critical issues. He is right in advocating federal funding for stem cell research. It's unfathomable that America, of all places, would slow science from finding ways to improve the lives of so many people. He is right that morality should not be legislated and that women's reproductive rights need to be maintained. He is right to reverse a dangerous direction the Bush administration has gone toward moving or even erasing the line between church and state.
Bush was praised during the campaign four years ago as a moderate, non-ideological Republican based on his tenure as governor of Texas. But his first four years have hardly been that. Perhaps with the shackles of campaigning behind him, Bush will adopt more centrist positions on social, moral, religious issues in a second term. Surely, a good Texan should be able to better understand the American definition of freedom -- a freedom in which religious, racial, ethnic differences are not only tolerated but celebrated; a freedom in which civil rights are unquestionably protected whether its a street corner thug, a militant religious leader or a celebrity charged in a high-profile crime.
In renewing our Bush endorsement, we stand as optimists that the president will continue his exemplary work on so many domestic public policy fronts while significantly improving on his weaknesses on international affairs and social policy.
These are critical times for America, at home and abroad. Much work awaits, and our trust goes to President Bush to get it done.
Endorsements are determined by The Gazette's Editorial Board and reflect this institution's positions on public policies and expectations of government. The board consists of executive officers of Gazette Communications, Editorial Department staff and the editor of The Gazette.
Bush is in Iowa today!!! I'm going to see him!
is he in Davenport? Where?
I'm not buying it. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush after systematically trying to ruin him for 4 years. These people are not to be trusted.
I saw this yesterday and was shocked SHOCKED I tell you. They must realize that they are losing people by being so liberal all the time.
Of course they're not to be trusted. The CR Gazette has been a lib rag for years. But i think they want to jump on the winner bandwagon.
Precisely, they think they see it breaking for Bush and they are afraid to lose their readership, so they feign "fairness". They make me puke.
I think he's going to be in davenport later, but he's in Council Bluffs this afternoon.
I think the Gazette endorsed Bush because of a possible Kerry effect on Commerce. It looks like the Gazette didn't want to endorse Bush, but figured that there readers would dump them if they endorsed Kerry.
The liberal bastions are cracking. CBS News with the Rathergate Scandal, NY Times with Blairgate, and many others. The Lamestream media have been forced to Kerry water and it has hurt them.
As it is, they look like they waited until the last possible minute, hoping to luck out by picking the eventual winner. Given their subscriber demographics, it probably makes perfect sense to endorse Dubya.
On a related note, have I mentioned lately that this is one of maybe a handful of newspapers across the country with the audacity to charge $ for the online version of the paper? Subscribers to the print version get it for free. The rest of us (would) have to pay. I actually considered subscribing to the Web version until I found that the Web site is many hours -- even a full day -- BEHIND the print version. Do they really expect people to pay for the privilege of getting their newspaper a day late? What a frickin' joke!
Frankly, I'd rather they'd endorsed Kerry. He's a joke, too.
Perhaps with the shackles of campaigning behind him, Bush will adopt more centrist positions on social, moral, religious issues in a second term.
Oddly, many FReepers hope the opposite is true; that, no longer shackled with concern for winning another term, Dubya will be free to abandon the centrist shtick to pursue a conservative agenda.
Fat chance, I say. If a second term brings with it anything to the right of more of the same, I will be pleasantly surprised.
I paid for my paper.
And I have had about enough of the liberal crap they spew, so if they want to come after me for posting this endorsement, fine.
They should be grateful to have the publicity I just gave them on Free Republic.
"I actually considered subscribing to the Web version until I found that the Web site is many hours -- even a full day -- BEHIND the print version. "
Sometimes the online version is days/ months old. It is truly pathetic. I hate that newspaper.
Do I see 7 Blue electoral votes in the red column?
Oh yes.... OHHHHH yess you do!!!!!
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.