Tampa Tribune (Conservative) "Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush..."

[Native]

.....As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world...

It then goes on to specifically list the reasons why (in bold type):
(1)Bush Overstated The Evidence, (2)No Dissension Allowed, (3)More
Fear Ahead, (4)Bush's Spending Ways (5)Government Behind Closed
Doors and (6)The Failed Compassionate Conservative. Each with 4 or
more paragraphs backing up their stance.

http://tampatrib.com/opinion/MGBU3UEHF0E.html

[Moderator]

1. link, please?

[Native]

3. man you are fast!

[Moderator]

2. Thank you!

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Wow, this editorial board is smart

and stupid at the same time.

I guess it takes a while to move from an ignorant position of supporting Bush to one that requires critical thinking.

While I agree with most of their assessment of the Bush presidency, their characterizations of Kerry show a great deal of ignorance. They quote his "global test" statement as "concerning". Obviously, they never bothered to look at the context of that statement. They also talk about how Kerry was disingenuous by wanting to be seen as a war hero and hoping we forget about his saying that Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam. Again, the editorial board hasn't done their homework (or doesn't want to). First and foremost, Kerry was absolutely correct. History shows that we committed massive atrocities in Vietnam. The current Secretary of State committed a huge atrocity in Mai Lai. Secondly, Kerry was reporting to congress about numerous admissions he had heard from vets at a meeting months earlier designed to discuss the problems with Vietnam. So, the editorial board is denouncing Kerry for both telling the truth and reporting accounts from others to congress.

Thank you editorial board for not supporting Bush, but I can hardly jump up and down in excitement due to your lack of journalistic integrity based on your statements about Senator Kerry.

[peacetalksforall]

5. I think these editor non-endorsements are some of the best writing I

have read from editors - not because it's such good news, but because you can 'know' their deliberations, misgivings, caution, determinattion, and their persuasion. Someone should publish them all, including those from some Republican politicos such as Elmer Anderson - the former Republican Governor of MN.

[LWolf]

6. I think this non-endorsement is more powerful

than a dozen endorsements from more liberal papers. Look at the time, space, and detail they provided about GWB's failures; when we say it, conservative minds are already closed before the first word enters their space. When a conservative paper says it, it carries a lot more weight. And really, who are we trying to contact these last couple of weeks? The undecideds. I honestly think something like this is more likely to swing them away from * than partisan commercials.