Hey! James! Are you LISTENING?
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
