WP: Kerry for President - Endorsed

[debatepro]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57584-2004Oct23.html


EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. HA!

Beat you by femtoseconds! ;-)

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Ha!

I beat you both in the editorials forum, and in turn was beat by a minute by someone in Campaign:2004. Good news travels fast. ;-)

[jhain]

7. YES!!!

all the speculation pointed to the dark side...
This is so right and so good!!

[xultar]

2. WHAT??? the WP endorses Kerry? UMBJ... n/t

[Divine Discontent]

5. This is real? great!!!!

One of the bigger screwups of Bush is this

"Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances."

[rwheeler31]

3. good for WP what ever happens

n/t

[faithnotgreed]

6. i dont even want to know what the "more than a few things" are that

they admire about bush....

[Catt03]

8. Don't even bother to read it....

:puke:

[Carolina]

32. I know what you mean

see my post#31 below. I hate the WP.

[crossroads]

9. WooooHoo!!! n/t

:bounce:

[spanone]

10. This is GREAT News!!!!!!!

[Nancy Waterman]

11. I have been dreading this endorsement

knowing it would be somewhat tepid, which it is. The Post has been very critical of Kerry and seems more supportive of many of Bush's policies than a supposedly "liberal" paper would normally be. At least they have finally taken a stand for Kerry, but it is not very overwhelming. It sounds more like the reluctant endorsement of a Republican newspaper. And some of them give a stronger endorsement of Kerry and a more blistering critique of Bush. (Read the Orlando Sentinal, for example).

[gottaB]

12. Has any other endorsement used the word "torture"?

"We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.

"These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs."

[BUSHOUT]

20. Thankyou for posting that. Incredible read. Spread it around. n/t

[dennis4868]

14. I just dont understand.....

what has happened to the WP these past 4 years. This WH is the most deceitful, lying and criminal administration anyone has ever seen and you have a guy like Kerry who is truly a war hero, statesman, and leader and this so called "liberal" paper gives Kerry a tepid endorsement? UP IS DOWN!

[dennis4868]

15. I just dont understand.....

what has happened to the WP these past 4 years. This WH is the most deceitful, lying and criminal administration anyone has ever seen and you have a guy like Kerry who is truly a war hero, statesman, and leader and this so called "liberal" paper gives Kerry a tepid endorsement? UP IS DOWN!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. I agree

I've cancelled my subscription twice in the past year, after thirty-two years, because I just got fed up with their kissing of Bush ass.

Katharine Graham is spinning in her grave. The Post has become such a worthless, rightwingnut rag.

Their "endorsement" isn't worth reading, but I had already decided to cancel for good if they endorsed Kerry.

[BUSHOUT]

21. Is the WP well known for being a liberal paper? I thought they were R! nt

[timezoned]

24. Sigh. This Question is a sad commentary

not to ridicule your post (pun not intentional) in the least, it's just the best commentary one could have, that you don't know. I assume age is a factor here also of course ;)

The Post was the paper that brought the Republican monster Nixon down, by reporting his sleaze when no other "respectable" major paper would touch it. And man did they touch it. Woodward (now gone to the dark side, editor of the paper) and Bernstein did investigative work on the Nixon White House that was credited for almost single-handedly (or double I guess you'd say) toppling him.

Great book "all the presidents men" they wrote, and a good film of it also with Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Worth seeing.


Sigh. Sish. Sigh.

Nothing remains the same I guess.

[BUSHOUT]

25. WTF?!?

[dennis4868]

26. Repubs say it is....

even though they help start the meaningless whitewater investigation and gave Bush a pass in the lead up to the Iraqi war.....

[dennis4868]

13. "a few things to admire?"

yeah like fooling your paper into thinking there was an iminent threat in Iraq and getting away with their lies without you questioning it? What else could they admire by someone who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and has gutted the environment, economy and the middle class?

[donheld]

16. I'm glad to see the WP has some sense

I'm quite pissed at Denvers sorry papers :grr:

[Carolab]

17. SWEEEEETTTTT! n/t

[TheDonkey]

18. very nice endorsement. (nt)

[prairie populist]

22. I hope our Rightwing Radical columnist JT sees this

JT of the Denver area is always spouting off anti-Kerry/pro-Bush propanda in our little weekly newspaper, quoting the WP and WSJ.

Glad to see the WP shoot him down.

Why the WP endorsement? If I'm not mistaken, Warren Buffet, of Berkshire Hathaway fame and a major Kerry supporter, is also a major WP owner.

[timezoned]

23. I'm glad they did it but that's the most

wishy washy endorsement I've ever read.

What particuarly amazes me is how even they with all their insider pro supposed depth and etc, have also bought the "we worry if he's decisive enough" bullshit straight from the GOP campaign attacks. There's no evidence for this smear in real life whatsoever. Sigh.

Well, good though. Helps a lot.

[demokatgurrl]

27. Does it really help? I do love all these endorsements but

they come so late in the game, does anyone know of any evidence that they actually have an effect? I'm very curious about all this. The only thing the endorsements seem to do for me is validate the WISE choice I've already made. But if I were staunchly for Bush, they wouldn't make a difference.

[timezoned]

33. Well, for the undecideds, yes perhaps

it wouldn't for those of us who are staunch either way, but the whole game at this point is the undecided voters.

There's also a sort of indirect influence that I think is the main importance- the broadcast media still take newspapers as more legit than they are, in some small part of their brains, so they see importance in it. Then they pay attention, then they stop skewing things the other way quite so much. With any luck ;)

[goforit]

28. Well, well, well......Welcome to the real world!!!! Hat's-off to WP!!!!

[Beetwasher]

29. Whoa!! No Shit!

Maybe they'll start running their polls without oversampling Repubs now...

[BlueNomad]

30. ...There was no way

The "venerable" Washington Post was going to endorse George Bush, but as I warned last week and the weeks prior, it would be tepid. It was a little better than tepid with a few hot button words like "disgusting". They also threw enough bones Kerry's way to polish it up a bit.

The fact is the POST is having unbelievable circulation challenges now and introducing Express has only exacerbated them further. DC and Montgomery County subscribers would have them out on their asses if their new band of bow tie accountants and policy wonks tried the sleazy move of endorsing Bush. Frankly I think it's disgraceful that they gave him as much credence as they did but don't forget they have to cover their own tails for jolly holly going along with the war themselves without much old fashioned journalism to conclude whether that was the correct course. Katherine is spinning in her grave.

[Carolina]

31. Overall a good editorial BUT

the WP is still a whore and I have huge WTFs, beg your pardons and
spare me the crap responses to the following WP statements:

1)"... we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire."

Gag, choke, puke. What is there to admire?!

2)"President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11 ... His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism."

What understanding. Bush knows pursuit of money and power PERIOD. He doesn't give a rip about freedom and has no deep understanding of world affairs whatsoever.

3)"Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators."

What are these editors smoking? What fucking alliances. And speaking of friendly dictators, what about the House of Saud!!!! he's accomplished more alright but not in the positive way the Post depicts.

4)"Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell ... But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure ... Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention."

Really??????????????

5)"In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war ... we continue to believe that the U.S. mission ... in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator."

That's right drag Clinton into this and blame him while you're at it. And spin that RNC bullshit that the US and Iraq is potentially better off.

6)"We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in ... schools, ... a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds.

Oh really? Leave No Child Behind is a huge success and I seem to remember that FDR created SS on the heels of the depression and expressly wanted it free of market whims ... Good ideas indeed.

7)"In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare."

This is a gem. Blame Clinton again. Clinton bequeathed a surplus especially to deal with the millions of baby boomers who will enter the SS/Medicare rolls by 2011. In 2000, Bush didn't even know SS was a federal program!

I could go on and on. But at times this article reeked of damning with faint praise. No depth about Bush and corporate scandal, prisoner abuse scandal ... The endorsement is a good thing but the Post is a Whore.

PS: sorry Mods, I may have exceeded the quote limit but I had to point out what the WP said to refute it. And I actually cut more than I printed.

[Nancy Waterman]

34. This, from a great liberal paper of yesteryear,

it just makes me sick.

[Horn Player Chris]

35. Damning with faint praise...

Seems that is what they are doing to Kerry. Very luke warm "endorsement" from the right-wingnut Washington Compost.