"In matters economic, it is and will continue to be conservative. On issues of civil rights and individual liberties, it is consistently liberal." (fwd)

[J.A. Terranson]

Hey!  James!  Are you LISTENING?

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org
0xBD4A95BF

	"An ill wind is stalking
	while evil stars whir
	and all the gold apples
	go bad to the core"

	S. Plath, Temper of Time



 Latest Editorials


Previous Story     Next Story

Sunday, October 24, 2004



For President: None of the Above



The Detroit News
 J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press

President George W. Bush pushed for the war in Iraq but has been a poor manager of the postwar conflict.

 Gerald Herbert / Associated Press

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has a 20-year record of hostility to the auto industry.

INSERT NAME OF AP INCLUDE IN THE LINE ABOVE AND REMOVE COMMENT TAG -->
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery



Agonizing choice comes down to this: Neither Bush nor Kerry meets our endorsement test

As Election Day approaches, we find ourselves, like many Americans, agonizing over the presidential election.

Four years ago, the choice was clear. We endorsed George W. Bush based on his promises of fiscal conservatism, limited government and prudence in foreign affairs.

Today, we sadly acknowledge that the president has failed to deliver on those promises.

At the same time, we are fearful of the approaches to government advocated by the Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, because they are at odds with the conservative vision of government that has long shaped this newspaper's editorial positions.

So we are left with a decision we detest but are nonetheless compelled to make: The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy that we reject.

This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years.

For those readers, we restate the philosophy first printed on these pages in 1958: "The News is bound to no political party. In matters economic, it is and will continue to be conservative. On issues of civil rights and individual liberties, it is consistently liberal."

To that we add: We will never feel obliged to defend a president whose blunders and misjudgments have hurt the nation.

Nor will we settle for an equally bad choice. John Kerry's record in the Senate and the promises he's made on the campaign trail suggest an administration that will be indecisive in the face of terror, raise taxes and spending, over-regulate business and stifle Michigan's economy.

Rather than an endorsement, we offer instead our assessment of the two candidates.

George W. Bush

The president succeeded in a critical area. When America most needed a strong leader following September 11, George W. Bush stood tall. He filled an historically important role of holding our nation together, of giving us strength and resolve, and of epitomizing our spirit and our will. For that we will be forever grateful.

Bush also responded with force against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, an action that was long overdue. And his economic stimulus plan helped move the country out of recession and minimized the financial impact of September 11.

But this president has a knack for squandering success.

With the nation and the world firmly behind his operation in Afghanistan, he turned his sights too quickly to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, his family's old nemesis.

Acting on intelligence that was faulty and too eagerly interpreted by the administration to match its agenda, Bush moved against Iraq without the support of key allies.

We backed the invasion of Iraq, accepting the Bush assertion that Saddam's weapons programs presented a gathering threat to the United States. While America, the world and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone, we now believe that Iraq was a fight that might have waited, or been avoided altogether.

Regardless, a president who takes the nation to war has an obligation to win that war as quickly, efficiently and painlessly as possible.

Bush has not done that. The management of the conflict in Iraq is abysmal. The United States went into Iraq without enough international support and brought too few of our own troops to complete the job.

In shorting the generals, in allowing political concerns to trump military strategy, in assuming too much cooperation from the Iraqi people, Bush allowed Iraq to become a hotbed of terrorism, the very condition he struck to prevent. The messy result has allowed our enemies to portray the United States as a villain, and use our role as a rallying cry for terrorists elsewhere.

There were too many poor calls, including disbanding the Iraqi army, leaving the borders undefended and trusting shady Iraqi nationals, all of which combined to turn what could have been a stunning liberation into a still uncertain, nation-building morass. Iraq has stretched America's military capabilities, strained friendships and will hamstring future strikes against rogue regimes.

Such bad management cannot be forgiven in a wartime president.

At home, Bush has shocked us with his free-spending ways. Non-defense, domestic spending increased more than 30 percent during his term. At the same time, the president cut taxes. Together, the two resulted in a massive federal budget deficit that could have been mitigated had Bush kept his promise of fiscal conservatism.

This was a failure of leadership. The American people will accept a call to sacrifice in times of crisis. But instead of asking for sacrifice, Bush delivered excess.

He plunged the federal government even deeper into the day-to-day operations of local school districts with the ill-advised No Child Left Behind Act; he failed to veto even one of Congress' pork-laden spending bills; he pushed ahead with his own spending agenda, including a confusing and deceptively expensive prescription drug plan, without regard to the budget demands of homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On trade, he exhibited protectionist tendencies that hurt American industry.

Finally, on the matter of civil liberties, Bush has turned away from the conservative doctrine that the Constitution must be strictly observed. His Patriot Act contained many important elements to break down the walls between law enforcement agencies and allow them to respond to advancements in technology.

But it also trashed personal privacy protections, suspended due process safeguards and upset the balance between the power of the government and the rights of the individual.

The president's record does not recommend him for re-election.

John Kerry

John Kerry is well-spoken, polished and would perform well in the world's courts and capitals.

He has spent two decades in the Senate and that experience would be valuable in a president. He has ideas, energy and intelligence. And he served his country admirably in Vietnam.

But all Michigan voters need to know about John Kerry is that he is no friend of the domestic auto industry. In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, Kerry has stood against automakers on every vote. Even those Michigan voters who support other aspects of his agenda must view his approach to the auto industry as a fatal flaw.

In January, he told the Associated Press that he supports a 50 percent increase in Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards over 10 years. Kerry now says that his 36 miles per gallon proposal is a goal, not a mandate, and that he would never do anything to hurt autoworkers.

We are not convinced. The 25 years of CAFE regulations have placed the Big 3 automakers at a crushing disadvantage against their foreign competitors, while not reducing per capita gasoline consumption. It is a failed strategy, and yet Kerry wants more of it.

He would also make the federal government a full partner in the auto industry, proposing $10 billion in federal funds to help automakers develop alternative fuel vehicles. Then he'd spend billions more on tax credits to create an artificial market for those vehicles.

If consumers clamor for alternative fuel vehicles, Detroit will build them, and will make money doing so. But if they don't, no amount of government subsidies will make Kerry's scheme work.

Kerry would also roll back recent reforms in air and water regulations that we believe better balance environmental protection with economic growth. Those changes have allowed power companies to meet growing energy demands and manufacturers to create new jobs, while still improving overall air and water quality.

On the campaign trail, Kerry has proposed a dizzying array of new spending programs, ranging from tuition credits to government-funded health insurance.

By some estimates, Kerry's programs will cost $2 trillion extra over 10 years. To pay for them, Kerry says he will raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year, which by his own estimates will net $860 billion over a decade.

Who will make up the difference?

Kerry's tax-the-wealthy-plan, in reality, will fall most heavily on the upper middle class. The truly wealthy - like Kerry himself, who paid a 12 percent tax rate on a household income of $6.7 million last year - have at their disposal a wide range of tax shelters, loopholes and dodges to shield them from tax hikes.

Kerry sees a big government solution to every problem. When he talks about his agenda, we grab tight to our wallets, as should you.

Kerry promises to move Iraq toward resolution by bringing in the allies who shunned the United States under Bush. That seems like wishful thinking, given that both France and Germany have said they will not join the Iraq coalition no matter who wins on Nov. 2.

We also worry that Kerry has a wait-and-see attitude toward combatting terrorism. This is a new war against a new enemy, and it requires a new strategy. Waiting for the enemy to strike before taking action will lead to disaster.

While now promising to be a strong military leader, John Kerry has consistently voted in the Senate against a strong military. And although he speaks haughtily now of the Bush administration's failure to get United Nations backing for the invasion of Iraq, Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, which did have U.N. approval.

Had the Democrats offered a viable alternative to Bush, we would not be in this position of indecisiveness. Kerry is not a viable alternative.

The Ideal President

So what are we looking for in a president?

Someone who will be a good steward of the people's money; someone who trusts citizens to use their own resources to solve their own problems, and those of their communities.

Someone who is willing to set priorities and stick to them; someone who places the needs of the nation above political agendas.

Someone who understands that business, commerce and profits are not dirty words - they're where the jobs come from. Someone who sees America still as a land of economic opportunity and encourages citizens to pursue their dreams, rather than constantly reminding them of the obstacles in their path.

Someone who respects the Constitution and recognizes that the document should not be twisted by each generation to answer passing threats.

We want a president whose character and temperament match the demands of the office. We want a president who appreciates that the responsibility of being the world's military superpower requires a deft touch to maintain harmonious relationships.

That person is not on the ballot this time. We are unwilling to settle for less.