Crawford, TX paper endorses Kerry

[asheris]

The one and only paper in Crawford, Texas* has endorsed John Kerry for President.

The bulk of their endorsement describes how an editorial board that endorsed Bush four years ago has come to the realization that Bush is not what he claims to be. How he has let them (and us) down time and again. How he cannot be relied upon.

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
  
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
  
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
  
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
  
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
  
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
  
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
  

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

...

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry's voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

(alternate link)


Added 9/30:
* Crawford Texas, population 705 (2000 census; est. 751 in 2002)
According to the 2000 census, there were 260 households in Crawford, with an average household size of 2.71.

The Iconoclast has a weekly circulation of 425- all of Crawford and much of the immediate area.

Comments

[asheris.livejournal.com]

What on earth do "unfulfilled promises" have to do with this? Every president ends up with those, either through their own actions, or because of too much opposition in the House and/or Senate. That's the way it goes.

That is NOT what is being discussed in the Iconoclast's endorsement.

Did the Bush II administration have a hidden agenda? I couldn't say for sure, but given how thoroughly they apparently had things planned out even before the 2000 election, it wouldn't be an entirely inappropriate description!


The list the Iconoclast offers is a list of things that Bush II has DONE.

The Iconoclast poses a question: HAD PEOPLE KNOWN that these are the things Bush II would focus on, and the things he would do, would they still have supported him four years ago?

It's a case of "if you knew then, what you know now, would you still have voted for him?"


For a lot of people, the answer to that, in all honesty, is most likely no, they wouldn't have.


The Iconoclast then proceeds to the next logical question: These are the kinds of things he's done so far. Do we want him to continue doing these things in our name, or is it time for someone new?

They came to the conclusion that it's time for someone new.


Did you even bother to read it, or have you become so pro-Bush that you can't stand to hear anything against him- not even facts?


Reposted with comments actually completed, instead of just notes to self of ideas.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

If you read my recent American related posts, you will see that I have been trying to show that you cannot take things at face value - on the issues of the economy, jobs, Kyoto etc etc. Many people are simply blinded by their anti-Bushness, and they cannot see any good out of the Bush administration. that's bigotry in a sense.

You seem to ignore my real point - which is the logic behind those assertions.

How easy it is to pick a list of things that you perceive have gone wrong 4 years on, and say would you have voted for these? - it's just silly beyond argument. Nobody can tell the future.

It's also all very easy to paint an unfounded conspiracy theory i.e. that Bush had a hidden agenda. Absurd! and Unproven. People are doing it all the time, and I'm surprised anyone would fall for that.

I would ask the same of you - "have you become so anti-Bush that you can't stand to hear anything pro- him - not even facts?"

[asheris.livejournal.com]

I'm not ignoring your point; you seem to be missing the logic that is there. They're not talking about telling the future. They're pointing out that he SAID the same things consistently during the 2000 campaign and while he's been in office; meanwhile what we have consistently gotten is something utterly different- even while he keeps saying the same things as before.

If you have someone running a company, and they spend four years consistently making bad decisions and running the company into serious debt with nothing to show for it, do you keep them on? Or do you find someone else to manage the company?

That is what it comes down to.


As a US citizen, living here and being directly affected by his policies, I haven't found any good in what Bush II has done. Reagan and Bush Sr., even though I didn't like or support them, there was always an underlying "well, at least he DID do...". With Bush II, there have been no such redeeming qualities.

Wait- he did go into Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden. BUT THEN AGAIN, he didn't send enough troops or equipment, and pretty much cut them off before they found bin Laden, who is still free. Funding that was supposed to go to reconstructing Afghanistan and hunting bin Laden was redirected to a war on Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11. So, sort of half points there. He started out on the right track, but got distracted from the real job.


I haven't seen anything in the past almost-four years that would suggest to me Bush II should be re-elected. Seriously, what has he done that has been GOOD for this country?

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"what has he done that has been GOOD for this country?

That is a difficult question to answer, especially when you take it on a national scale. In fact, it is a pertinent question to ask Bush - and maybe someone will, in the remaining two debates.

Within your country, you will always find people, maybe even substantial numbers, whose lives have been improved by some of Bush's policies on domestic issues. On a national scale though, it's harder to define within this relatively short time frame of the past 4 years what has been good for the whole country. Maybe that's why people are so polarised.

One could argue the case that they perhaps didn't let the US economy slide to an even worse level (and that remains to be argued) or that the current tough stance in the war against terror is extremely important groundwork for the future security of the US and other countries.

I think it also comes down to people's expectations. I feel many expectations of Bush have been rather unreasonable. I think 9/11 really brought home to Americans whats going on "out there", and high on people's concern is how to deal with security. Someone's got to take the lead, and I really don't feel that someone who changes their mind depending on how the wind blows would have been suitable to deal with the threats present between 2000 and 2004.

[asheris.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing the "someone who changes their mind depending on how the wind blows" refers to Kerry?

I suggest you start paying attention to more than the Republican spin on that one. Kerry's position has actually been pretty constant- the only changes have been based on new information that would cause anyone sensible to re-evaluate their position.

Yes, he originally voted for the $87 billion- because there was a provision in the bill that specified a source for that money. (Rollback on some of the tax cuts for the richest 10%.) Once he voted for it, the Republican leadership told their people to vote against it- they did.

When the bill was brought back, the provision that set a source for the money was gone- this money was apparently going to appear out of nowhere. When Kerry voted against it, the Republican leadership told their people to vote for it- they did.

So there's all that money we're spending- but nobody knows how the hell we're going to pay for it.

(So those Republican senators who are campaigning for Bush by spreading the misleading story that Kerry voted for the money, then against it? Nearly all of them voted AGAINST it, before voting for it. Actually, they voted against the one that made fiscal sense, and voted instead to borrow and spend more.)

Kerry insisted that we needed a specific source for the money, rather than just hoping it would appear out of nowhere (most likely as money borrowed)- and he was right. That's not being wishy-washy- that's being fiscally responsible!

Fiscal responsibility is an area where the current administration has failed spectacularly. From annual surplus to record deficit in less than 4 years? All the while not putting money where it's needed- Homeland Security and first responders? Promising money to help New York rebuild- and then skimping on it? Touting "No Child Left Behind", and then not funding it- and it's damned expensive! Not to mention, taking us to war while cutting taxes on the upper brackets at the same time is NOT fiscally sensible.

"Middle class tax cut?" Not as such, no... in fact, research by the Congressional Budget Office has shown that the middle quintile (people making approximately $50-75,000/year- the bulk of the middle class here) actually had their federal taxes go UP as a result of Bush's tax "cuts".


Yes, Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war- Bush had said repeatedly that he wanted that so he'd have something to hold over Saddam as a threat. Giving him the the authority under those conditions made sense. However, when he was granted that power, Bush immediately went forward with an attack.

As someone wrote in a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune the other day: "For those having trouble understanding John Kerry's position on granting President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq, if necessary: When someone tells the sheriff he needs a carry permit for self-defense, the sheriff does not expect him to blow away the first person on the street whose looks he doesn't like."


Now, what else has Kerry supposedly changed his mind about "depending on how the wind blows"?

[asheris.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, and Security- if Bush were all that good on security, why was he consistently ignoring anything having to do with the topic up until 9/11/2001?

He had warnings from the previous administration, who even presented the incoming administration with a complete plan for taking out bin Laden. Bush's people chucked it.

He had warnings from his own intelligence people that something big was coming. He ignored it.

We were getting warnings from other countries that they were hearing chatter about something big in the works- Bush et al brushed that off.

The August 6 PDB, "bin Laden determined to strike in US", included mention of plane hijackings and possible targets such as Washington DC and New York City. Nope- blew that off, too.


Since 9/11:
No additional funding for the Border Patrol. Coast Guard funding is being "trimmed". STILL no plan in place for inspecting ships, especially container ships, entering our seaports. Promised funding for first-responders to get anti-terrorism equipment and training has been skimpy and poorly directed. And that's just the beginning.

How are we dealing with security? We're not. We're getting pretty words, and nothing tangible.

Ashcroft made huge announcements when they were busy rounding up "suspected terrorists". Now we find he's going 0 for 5,000 on convictions. (Taking Liberties, by David Cole of The Nation.) Been holding these people without access to an attorney (illegal under the Constitution) and without charging them for months, and even years. Of course, Ashcroft isn't saying anything at all about how they made some pretty spectacular mistakes, and these people weren't actually terrorists after all.

At least, they weren't before- who knows how they'll be feeling now that their lives have been destroyed.


Iraq was not the source of the terrorists. Most of them came from Saudi Arabia, our "good friend". bin Laden and many of his people are (or were, anyway) in Afghanistan. Attacking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the "war on terror".

Making things up is NOT strength or leadership. Refusing to change your mind in the face of clear evidence that you've made a mistake is not strength or leadership, either. That's being stubborn, and dare I say, stupid.