If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.
Posted on 10/22/2004 9:22:45 AM PDT by areafiftyone
This year's presidential election is the most important since World War II. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon with hijacked airplanes, and a hijacking struggle over Pennsylvania, make it so.
The deaths of 3,000 innocent and unsuspecting people in the capital of the United States and in one of our great cities shook the nation to its roots.
President George W. Bush united the families of the victims and a citizenry horrified by the uncertainty of terrorism. He did so brilliantly, healing compassionately as national father figure and leading decisively as commander in chief.
Bush correctly identified the source of the attacks -- al-Qaida -- and its adopted home of Afghanistan, which became the target for the wrath of the United States. He understood that any threat had to be eradicated to rebuild security, which is the foundation on which our free society is built.
The war in Afghanistan pushed the core of al-Qaida out of its base and put it on the run. The war also drove out the ruling Taliban, which had been supportive of alQaida. Just this month, in the aftermath of the war, Afghans cast ballots in their first national democratic election.
With Afghanistan's government headed in the right direction, our Republican president pushed the war on terrorism onward into what his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, correctly calls "a mess."
The president's decisions leading up to the Iraq War divided our citizens and leaders, as have many of his decisions since capturing Baghdad.
Bush wrongly said that Iraq, under its sadistic dictator, Saddam Hussein, had stockpiled great reserves of weapons of mass destruction. Bush quashed weapon inspections, steamrolled otherwise-faithful allies and bulled ahead with his war on Iraq.
The invasion and postwar revolt against the United States have resulted in the deaths of more than 1,100 U.S. military personnel.
DOMESTIC DIVISION
At home, Bush had begun his presidency with an economy at the tip of a diving board, ready to plummet in concert with the demise of the dot-coms. In response to a sinking stock market and disappearing jobs, he rightly prescribed tax cuts. However, he left himself open to charges of disproportionately favoring the haves over the have-nots.
Then, rather than reining in spending as would be expected under conservative governance, the Republican Congress went on a spending spree, and Bush lifted not a finger to stop the free-for-all (he could learn spending control from his "turkey"-busting brother Jeb, the governor of Florida). Bountiful surpluses turned into vast deficits.
Many other matters under the president's purview have been adversely affected: The cost of health care has been rising like an untethered balloon. Medicare is under threat of cuts or privatization. Bush's limits on stem cell research threaten the lives or quality of life of many who pray for medical relief. The traditional separation of church and state is being blurred unnecessarily. Our environmental protections -- which safeguard not only our land, water and air, but the health and well-being of everyone -- have been set adrift. Science has reached a consensus about the threat of global warming, but the United States has shown no leadership on the subject in this administration.
Do Bush's errors on Iraq and his divisive domestic policy matter? Yes, greatly.
Are they pertinent? No, not for this election.
The reason: President Bush has a single-minded focus on seeing freedom defeat terrorism. To support this difficult-but-vital task, Bush is determined that the people and businesses of our nation be sufficiently free from taxation and regulation. And he will see Iraq through to democracy and subsequent peace.
LEARN FROM PAST
As hard as that may be to accept for those who see society backsliding and John Kerry as the one who would correct its direction, the United States must rebuild its foundation and make it solid first. President Bush's understanding of this need and his clear leadership toward it are paramount for the nation's safety and survival. On this, the president is resolute.
In contrast, John Kerry is circumspect. His approach of analyzing a problem in microscopic detail, and commenting upon it from one angle, then another and yet others, over an extended period, produces confusion. As he has run for president, Kerry's muddled positions and zigzagging campaign management have foreshadowed failure of leadership that would be disastrous at this dangerous time.
We have seen this before from a bright, analytical president whose penchant for deep thought before action mired the nation when movement was vital. The presidency of Jimmy Carter is remembered for 14 months in 1979 and 1980 when Iran held hostage the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Carter could find no solution. The 52 hostages were not released until his last day in office. Carter's other failing was economic inaction, which allowed inflation to run away. That double-digit inflation devastated the finances of businesses and individuals, and weakened the nation.
Regardless of how great Kerry and Carter are as citizens and public servants, no matter how insightful on the nation's broad societal needs, their similar leadership weaknesses make Kerry an unacceptable risk now.
President Bush's certain focus on securing the United States by defeating international terrorists, and his devotion to building an economy with the strength to pay for such protection, make him the appropriate choice Nov. 2.
As it did in 2000, The Ledger recommends George W. Bush for president.
Any time a Florida-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "Florida" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.
Onward to victory,
Which way would you have expected this paper to go?
We stood outside the parking lot of the St. Petersberg times, a liberal rag sold out to socialism and Kerry, waving Bush signs all morning.
They totally ignored us. What a shame, I combed my hair for the occaision.
That's ok, they can run, but they can't hide....
I write for this paper...I was totally shocked when I learned from my editor that they were not endorsing Kerry...I thought I saw it coming.
I am surprised at this endorsement.
To be honest..just because it is in the "bible belt" of Florida was no sure solid guarantee that we were going for Bush. The Ledger is the paper I write for and I can assure you...it has leaned Kerry plenty this election.
YIPEEEEE!
LOL...as was I hahaha..and I work for them! FYI: We are paid and owned by the NY Times.
This is lovely, but, um, so what? Do newspaper endorsements really change anyone's vote? I doubt very much that anyone in the world gets up on November 2, reads what the newspaper has to say about the candidate it's endorsing, and says, "By God, they're right! I'm going to go out and vote for this guy just because the paper's editorialists say I should!" Is there something I'm missing? The idea that newspapers should endorse the election of a particular candidate smacks of the self-delusion of the old print media.
Are you in Central Florida ?
Thank you. I was shocked that our little hometown paper, the Columbia, MD Flyer endorsed Bush because of terrorism. You have to understand that Columbia is as liberal as it gets. I hope that tells us a little something about the country.
Yep!
Bump!
Columbia! Holy Crap! I'm a Marylander. There IS hope in this state yet.
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.