The Tampa Tribune makes its Presidential Recommendation

[redway10]

From the Tampa Tribune:

"We find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and `moderate man of mainstream convictions' who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of `nation building.'

We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush.

As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re-election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a `uniter not a divider' within the United States and the world.

Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose undistinguished Senate record stands at odds with our conservative principles and whose positions on the Iraq war - the central issue in this campaign - have been difficult to distinguish or differentiate.

It is an achingly difficult decision to not endorse a candidate in the presidential contest, and we do not reach this decision lightly.

The Tribune has endorsed a Republican for president ever since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, with one exception. We did not endorse in the 1964 presidential race because, as we said at the time, `it is our feeling that unless a newspaper can recommend a candidate with complete conviction that he be the better choice for the office, it should make no endorsement.'

Like the country, this editorial board finds itself deeply divided about the president's prosecution of the war and his indifference to federal spending."

I'm just mad at Bush for wasting America's money. You should be, too.

[Mitchell]

This is a very interesting article. It essentially speaks volumes about the state of this election, the two candidates, and the state of our country. That being said, this is how I see it.
Obviously, Iam well aware of slant in the media, with clearly Republican slanted Fox News, and liberal leaning media sources, and so on. This being the case, and maybe this is unrealistic, I dont believe that any large media outlet, newspaper, or source, should offically "endorse" a candidate anyway, as this can serve to influence its' readers towards its' slant, be it Republican or Democrat, and may detract from undecided voters seeing both sides, and arriving at a decision on their own. Perhaps this sounds naive, but it is just my view. I feel that the media, while clearly bias in one way or another, has the responsibility to provide fair and impartial reporting, and allow the voters to decide for themselves based on what they see and hear. Iam not by any means saying that commentators in both editorial pages and on TV should not speak their minds and present their views in favor of or against a candidate, but I do feel that any media source, be it newspaper or what not, should clearly stop short of saying "We endorse this candidate", be he Kerry, Bush, or what not. Commentary is one thing, "endorsement" is another, and that is where I would draw the line. As I said, I dont know how realistic this is, but it is just my view.

Mitch

[kurchatovium]

I think the democrats waste a lot more of my money thats why my taxes are so damn high. :rolleyes:

[redway10]

The money wasted by the Bush administration in order to guarantee a second term is unprecedented in the history of this country. Taxpayers each got hundreds of dollars in tax relief in exchange for thousands of dollars in new debt. This is crazy.

Clinton did nothing like this. The next closest to jack up spending like this (since WW II) was Reagan.

What the hell happened to the pay as you go plan that brought us the surplus budgets of the late 1990's? The Republican President and Congress have demolished it.

[kurchatovium]

I got no tax relief from Clinton so I have no ideal what you are saying the only tacx relief I got was from Bush.

Which brings us to Kerry who has voted for every tax increase while in the senate (49 times I believe) and voted down every tax cut. Kerry is the defintion of wasted money. :rolleyes:

[redway10]

I never said that anyone got tax relief from Clinton.

I said that the Clinton administration (along with the Republican Congress that swept into office in 1994 with a promise of balanced budgets) was financially responsible, while the Bush administration (along with the newest Republican Congress) has gone on a spending spree of unprecedented proportions.

Americans (and you!) will have to pay back the "tax relief" (its a loan, not a gift!), but far worse, we will have to pay for vote-getting crap like the Republicans $500 billion (maybe $800 billion) senior citizen prescription drug plan. This is the definition of wasted money.

Where is this money going to come from and why would anybody but senior citizens and their vote-hungry politicians think it is a good idea when the deficit is skyrocketing??? Eventually this plan will require a lot of your tax dollars!. Is this John Kerry's fault? Clinton's?

And we have to pay for the elimination of the estate tax, and the phenomenally expensive war in Iraq, and "tax relief" for the incredibly wealthy, and on and on and on.

George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill in his entire administration. The man is exactly what the Republicans have accused the Democrats of being - he is a Big Government Big Spender.

And we are about to burst through the next debt ceiling - the Republicans are using accounting tricks to postpone this vote until after the election.

There is no way that the Republican Congress would let John Kerry tax or spend anything like Bush is doing. This would be the financial responsibility we had before our President and Congress were the same party.

But hey, I'm financially well off and I can afford to pay my share of the burgeoning debt. If you are in the same position, congratulations.

However, most Americans should fear the skyrocketing deficit that we will have to pay interest on every single year. If 50.000001% of Americans don't fear this insane spending spree, well, then George gets his 4 more years.

You can be a good Christian and vote against Bush. This country hasn't gotten 1% more moral in the last 4 years. It's the same mostly-moral country it was 4 years ago.

[kurchatovium]

Seemslike you are more worried about balancing the budget I am not. I am worried about me and the middle class keeping our money. Thus I am voting for the guy that gives me tax breaks and tax cuts and I am by no means rich. If you think Kerry is gonna reduce spending you are sadly mistaken his record indicates otherwise. There is no guarantee the congress will stay republican anyways and if it does not then we will be paying for tons of social programs that Kerry wil intorduce. Clinton did do a bit more for keeping down goverment costs more than most other democrats did. I will grant you that and those are the few things I agree with him on. You must remember Kerry is the most liberal senator in the senate. Edwards was voted number 4. So this adminstration will most likely not behave anywhere near the way Clinton did.

[redway10]

I am very concerned about what all of the new spending is going for. I don't think that much of it will benefit me, and that money is much bigger than the tax relief money.

Every analysis I have seen makes a 2005 Republican Senate and House extremely likely. Normally, incumbents in the House are re-elected 96-98% of the time, and additionally, the Democrats have more of their Senate seats up for grabs.

I can't imagine Kerry getting Congress to agree to much if any vote-getting pork-barrel spending. I think that both sides will be forced to rachet down the money-wasting. Congress will pass almost anything Bush asks for, but they will fight Kerry to the death

Kerry and Edwards were at the top of the liberal scale for ONLY 2003 (which is where the 1st and 4th stats come from). But judging their "liberalness" based only on the one year they were both absent much of the time trying to win the Democratic party nomination is unreasonable. This skewed the analysis significantly.

Whether they should have been absent so much is a different argument.

Taking into account his entire career, Kerry is currently the 11th most liberal Senator (which is probably still more liberal than Clinton - but not much more than Hillary). Edwards was 40th, 35th, 19th, and 31st in his other Senate years - far from 4th.

btw, I agree with Bush's invasion of Iraq, I only wish that the post-war had been better planned.

[kurchatovium]

btw, I agree with Bush's invasion of Iraq, I only wish that the post-war had been better planned

I agree as well. Unfortunately a lot of the CIA's capacity to gather intelligence was reduced during Clinton's adminstration though I doubt anyone could have seen 9/11 coming.

Taking into account his entire career, Kerry is currently the 11th most liberal Senator (which is probably still more liberal than Clinton - but not much more than Hillary). Edwards was 40th, 35th, 19th, and 31st in his other Senate years - far from 4th.

I suppose the actual numbers do not matter that much but Kerry is indeed more liberal than Clinton. Thats what scares me. Had Edwards actually won the nomination I might have voted for him but I am reluctant to put a trial lawyer in the highest office in the land. LOL

Every analysis I have seen makes a 2005 Republican Senate and House extremely likely. Normally, incumbents in the House are re-elected 96-98% of the time, and additionally, the Democrats have more of their Senate seats up for grabs.

You may well be right. Generally people tend to vote to try to keep the other side honest as well. So If Bush wins the congress may turn democratic to try to keep him honest. Might be the same way with Kerry give him a Republican congress to keep him in check. However if voter discontentment with this adminstration is high enough they may vote everything democratic. Last example would have been after Nixon. Granted that was an extreme case however.