Washington Post Endorses Kerry (very tepid)

[Dudley_DUright]

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.

The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. 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. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.

But 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. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.

The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.

more...

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

[still_one]

1. it is about time

[annerevere]

2. I read the entire article - not tepid at all

That's a strong endorsement, considering it's the WPost.

[Dudley_DUright]

3. I was commenting on mainly these two paragraphs

As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.

We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.

For them to even be vacillating on Kerry vs. the worst president ever is tepid in my opinion.

[diamond14]

8. Strong for KERRY.....damning for bush*.....go WaPo....

more snips.....

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.

............

But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.

......................

SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.

Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.

On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach......

[Laelth]

9. Agreed.

I thought it measured and intelligent, even if it echoed Republican rhetoric about Bush's outright lies. For a major paper, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

:smoke:

-Laelth

[The Zanti Regent]

11. But they still lust in their hearts for Bush

what a wimpy and weak piece of shit this editorial is. You can just see the tears of such assholes as Sally Quinn, Bob Woodward, Jim Glassman, Dana Milbank and Whoreward Kurtz dripping from every line

[autorank]

4. Oh boy, they're so resolute.

I was wrong in another thread suspecting that there would be consistency between the Post's moral bankruptcy and an endorsement that would reflect that vile character; Bush. As another DUer pointed out, the Post is too whorish to provide the final excuse for a majority of its readers to go into full revolt. Even if their endorsement is worth a few votes, it is worth it. We'll have another day to overthrow l'ancien regime.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. Actually, I was as surprised as you considering their

horrible news coverage of Kerry, but I guess I will take a tepid Kerry endorsement over a Bush one any day.

[whistle]

5. Wow, the media are piling on

[Cha]

6. What's to "admire"????

The way * LIES without Shame? The way he convinces half the voting population that WMD were in Iraq..you, wapo had a Big Hand in that!

The way he says God tells him to Kill? The way he has Orwellian names for Clear Skies iniatives? The way he's going to speed right into privatizing our Social Security in January(so says he)???

The way he handled himself in the debates..slobbering, drooling, and barking his talking points like nclb? Or the way he mentioned at least eleven times that it was HARD WORK?

Rest assured.. Kerry will RELIEVE him of that on Janurary 20, 2005!

[reprehensor]

10. Tepid, or no...

This is a welcome endorsement.

It will give many Conservative readers pause for thought.

Nice to see that WP has decided to become part of the 'Reality-Based-Community'. Too bad they didn't do it before the invasion of Iraq.

Goddam Kool-Aid drinkers.

[hansolsen]

12. I agree. This is an important endorsement and long overdue. The

editors and publishers of the WP strew rose pedals in Shrubs path to Iraq. They saw WMD under every palm tree in Iraq, and dropped a ten ton safe on Howard Dean when Dean opposed the war, advocated an "even handed" approach to the I/P dispute, and deplored media consolidation.

I always assumed the WP saw the war in Iraq as the war to make the middle east safe for Isreali settlers to have their way in the West Bank. The Likud lobby surely loved every WP editorial written in 2002 and 2003 that covered the war in Iraq.

What is important here, IMO, is that very influential members of the Jewish community, and many jewish voters who normally voted Democratic in the past, looked to the WP for confirmation that Bush was better for Israel than Kerry, even though Kerry has a strong pro-Israeli voting record in the Senate.

Carl Rove and company had visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads, dreaming of drawing down significant support from the usually high Dem majorities among Jewish voters, especially in Florida.

Today's editorial rings the curtain down on that whole sad scenario. The WP was dead wrong on WMD, dead wrong on the war in Iraq, dead wrong on trusting Shrub to find his own ass in a dark room, and dead wrong toy with supporting him until now.

The only thing missing is a grand mea culpa for their complicity in the national disgrace and national nightmare that is now unfolding in Iraq.

[reprehensor]

13. So much guilt...

NY Times, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, they all let the American people down.

Hans, if you haven't seen 'Orwell Rolls in His Grave', get it. It's brilliant.

It'll be on FSTV on Monday if you have DishNetwork.

[hansolsen]

14. Thanks, I do have DishTV, and I'll look for it. Whenever I refer to

Shrub's lies on Iraq WMD, Iraq ties to 9-11, etc. -- I think of 1984. Bush's lies are great rolling Orwellian lies of the first order.

I have said in other posts that admirers of Orwell must be ABB by about 99.9 to .1.

[progressivedancer]

15. Wait,

I did feel like the NY Times betrayed us at some point, but slowly the NY Times have been redeeming themselves.

[hansolsen]

16. Yes, indeed they have, and the WP could take a lesson from their

betters further North. As I said, it is time for WP mea culpa, ala the Times.

[Skittles]

17. they'll never be able to redeem themselves in my eyes

not until they hammer on the horrific mistake of the war in Iraq the same way they cheerleaded for it