Dozens of newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have changed their stances and endorsed John Kerry this year; but not my dumbass hometown rag! Check out the Courant's endorsement of the worst president in at least 70 years:
http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-bush2.artoct24,1,6929915.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorialsAnd now, check out the shitstorm of responses to the paper's endorsement of President Rain Man:
From `I Am Appalled' To `Thanks'
October 26, 2004
Readers react to The Courant's Sunday editorial endorsing President Bush for a second term.
Naive Endorsement
I am appalled that The Courant would endorse President Bush, hoping that his "first-term weaknesses" will go away (editorial, Oct. 24, "Re-Elect President Bush"). Are the editors really that naive?
I have not seen any evidence of any planned change in policy by the Bush administration on the vital issues listed: profligate spending, rebuilding alliances, civil liberties, environmental protection and the influence of fundamentalists.
What I do see is clear evidence from the record and the administration's own words that it will proceed further down the same path.
I hope most voters are not as naive as The Courant's editors are. Perhaps that shows a bit of my own naivete.
Robert M. Zannoni II
Storrs
Editorial Was On Target
The Courant has done it again! After another four years of what I perceive to be a liberal bias, the newspaper has again picked the right presidential candidate. The Courant's analysis was a good one and, in my view, right on target. Thanks for taking a broader, in-depth view of this election.
Tom E. Paulus
East Granby
President Has Left U.S. Divided
Although I disagree with several of the points made in the Oct. 24 editorial, I will concentrate on only one subject: the war in Iraq.
Tell the families of the more than 1,000 dead (and more than 7,000 injured) that Saddam Hussein posed a "threat to peace." On what evidence does The Courant base that conclusion? The coalition of the unwilling (in what I call the Wal-Mart war - done on the cheap) has not flocked to the United States' side, nor have the Iraqi people. Instead, we have bogged down in a Vietnam-like guerrilla conflict that is worsening each day as another roadside explosion or suicide bombing kills American troops.
In Southern California, my son reports, bumper stickers read "Re-defeat President Bush," speaking to the irony of this mess, brought on by a president not elected by the popular vote.
How can The Courant endorse a president whose four-year record has left the country so divided?
Nancy Davis
Bloomfield
Marriage Isn't Yesterday's War
The Courant's endorsement of President Bush categorized those fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as "fundamentalists."
State after state has passed constitutional amendments banning the practice. But The Courant has described the struggle as "yesterday's wars."
The Courant never loses. It has consistently backed same-sex marriage even as the American people have rejected it. It is a clever strategy to declare victory and move on, even if you haven't won.
Dennis Dostert
Guilford
Resolve Or Willful Blindness?
The Courant's tepid endorsement of President Bush begins with the cautionary note that in this election, "it's not a clear-cut case of one candidate being far superior to another." The Courant also goes out of its way to assure its readers that its editorial board will not be afraid to challenge aspects of a second Bush term. Such pronouncements are not surprising.
The Courant endorsed John G. Rowland for a third gubernatorial term in 2002 and then, a year later, led the crusade to tear down his administration. It's obvious that The Courant now wants to cover its bases and not again be caught should this Bush presidency, marked by misjudgments, see a second term. Sadly, The Courant's editorial board could have avoided such a situation by strongly endorsing Sen. John Kerry.
The editorial board makes a point of noting that it stands with Sen. Kerry on abortion rights, gun control, environmental protection and the provision of health care to the millions of Americans without it. It chides the president for failing to have a plan to win the peace in Iraq and for using bad intelligence to send young American men and women into war.
So what, then, is The Courant's justification for the president's re-election? According to the editorial, the president is resolute and a strong leader in a dangerous time. Sadly, this newspaper does not seem to understand that resolve and leadership are not one and the same.
Indeed, this president is resolute. He is resolute in his belief that rushing to war in Iraq at the expense of finishing the job in Afghanistan was the best way to fight the terrorists. He is resolute in his belief that the United States need not work with the wider world community to effectively promote change abroad. He is even resolute in his belief that his tax cuts for the rich are helping all Americans, despite a record deficit and a four-year net loss of jobs. George W. Bush is so resolute that he cannot think of a single mistake in the course of his presidency.
Resolve is one thing; willful blindness is another. Unfortunately, The Courant cannot tell the difference.
Matthew J. Skahill
West Hartford
Bring Back The Times
Having (sadly) anticipated the event with some certainty, I have but one thing to say concerning The Courant's feeble endorsement of George W. Bush for a second term:
The Hartford Times cannot possibly be resurrected fast enough. Isn't there anybody out there interested in owning another Hartford newspaper?
Steven W. Varney
Rocky Hill
Sen. Kerry Can't Do Worse
If I didn't know better, I would assume that The Courant's endorsement was tongue-in-cheek. The Courant praised President Bush's strong leadership, confidence and idealism, but spent much of the editorial noting his flawed actions, programs and policies. Could Sen. Kerry really do any worse?
We have the largest national deficit in history. The Courant lays the blame for "reckless spending" on Congress, but recall that Bush has not vetoed a single appropriation bill.
His underfunded No Child Left Behind law is, according to many educators across the nation, a paper-driven debacle. The drug benefit program, in The Courant's words, "is confusing and requires more out-of-pocket expense than most supporters wanted."
The Courant supports abortion rights, gun control and strong environmental controls, all of which have been weakened by the current administration.
The endorsement apologizes for Bush's shortcomings and errors, yet praises his firm leadership. Tell me: Is strong, faith-driven leadership in the wrong direction by a person who admits to no mistakes what we really want?
Roland Chirico*
South Windsor
*This guy is one of my old college professors!
Administration Threatens Water
Though I currently reside in California, I grew up in West Hartford. In the 1980s, acid rain was affecting lakes and streams in New England. Forests were being polluted by industrial plants in the Midwest. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was enacted to combat this problem. Its success was trumpeted by the first Bush administration.
In 2002, several New England states, including Connecticut, sued the current Bush administration for gutting the Clean Air Act.
The Los Angeles Times (another Tribune newspaper) has documented the current administration's verbatim insertion of text from coal lobbying materials directly into federal law.
Your drinking water supply cannot survive another four years of Bush/Cheney.
Andrea Schmitt
North Hollywood, Calif.
Dittohead
Regarding The Courant's endorsement of the president: Ditto!
Alison J. Nichols
Essex
Don't Endorse At All
The editors of The Courant should refrain from endorsing any candidate for president and trying to influence the election. Let the editors take their opinions to the polls, like the rest of the citizens of the state do, especially those of us who do not have a readership of thousands to influence. Focus on reporting the news in an unbiased, factual manner. That is The Courant's job.
Cindy Seip
Wethersfield
Resolute? Try Stubborn
I am truly disappointed in The Courant's decision to endorse President Bush for a second term. The newspaper views his pre-emptive get-even aggression as the mark of a resolute leader, while largely dismissing John Kerry's lack of charisma as a lack of leadership potential. Surely following a stubborn Bush through four more years of disasters like Iraq is worse than suffering through the angst of a thoughtful Kerry confronting the complexities of today's world.
The Courant has, at least, legitimated my practice of reading it for state and local news and The New York Times and other publications for intelligent and insightful analysis and commentary on national and international affairs.
Douglas K. Charles
Middlefield
Hollow Words
The Courant's endorsement of President Bush was nothing more than a transparent attempt at appearing balanced.
Throughout the year, the newspaper's headlines have magnified the negative, instead of the magnificent good that our brave military has provided for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although the wording of the endorsement is accurate, it rings hollow to this reader.
Jim Nathan
Bolton
Can't Have Both Bush And Kerry
The Courant's endorsement of President Bush is fascinating. The editorial explains "Why Mr. Bush?" and "Why Not Mr. Kerry?" and then lists the things Bush must do if elected, all of which could have been taken from the Democratic Party platform.
When I was young, editors were called "newspaper people." Now they are called "journalists." Somewhere along the way, reality and common sense were lost. You can't have it both ways.
Richard H. Dunn
Wethersfield
Victim Of The Economy
I lost my job two years ago because, as Bush minions would say, it was good for the economy. My jobless benefits ran out last year. Times are hard.
The only thing I have left is my vote.
The truth is that I get better and more truthful news about Iraq and the economy from the Internet than from The Courant. The newspaper's editors may someday be where I am today. Perhaps sooner than they think.
Bruce Root
West Hartford
Excusing The Incumbent
I found The Courant's recommendation to re-elect President Bush so absurd as to be laughable. The editorial went to such great lengths to minimize or excuse the incumbent's horrendous record over the last four years that it may have been a more effective endorsement of Sen. Kerry.
It is plainly apparent to anyone with the slightest familiarity with The Courant's editorial positions that this endorsement comes solely from the publisher. It is fortunate that The Courant's endorsement of Bush will have little or no effect on its readership.
Mark Sheehan
Mansfield
Why Would Bush Change?
I cannot believe that Courant editors would endorse Bush.
For four years, I have been reading editorials criticizing Bush for his administration's environmental damage, polarization of the country, anti-woman policies, replacing science with ideology, invading Iraq on extremely faulty evidence (with no plan to get out), massive job losses, no-bid contracts and subsequent war profiteering by Halliburton, soaring national debt - the list is endless. And yet The Courant suggests four more years of this?
The editorial's closing suggestions on the things Bush should change if elected are either naive or sophistry. Why would Bush change the way he panders to religious fundamentalists or to corporations despoiling our environment or his arrogant disdain of other nations or his administration's abuse of civil liberties or his tax breaks to the wealthy along with corporate welfare? These are his basic policy.
The U.S. Constitution, environment and people cannot afford four more years of a Bush theocracy. The Courant's endorsement is irresponsible.
Carol Laun
Granby
Another Editorial Misjudgment
On Oct. 20, 2002, The Courant published an endorsement, "Rowland, Four More Years," which proved to be a devastating editorial misjudgment.
Two years later, on Oct. 24, we find the same misguided logic in "Re-Elect President Bush."
What has enlightened the editorial staff to believe that the next years of a Bush presidency would be any different than his first term? The editorial's own incomplete listing of Bush's weaknesses as president is reason enough to vote him out of office. That same listing is why we should elect the intelligent, incisive Sen. John Kerry to the presidency and put the country on a corrected course toward the future.
John Philion
Granby
Newspaper Will Bear The Guilt
You may add my voice to the din I am sure you are enduring over the endorsement of President Bush. If Publisher Jack Davis bears the responsibility, then may he bear the guilt. Endorsing George W. Bush for election (I refuse to say "re-election") to the office of president is not simply an error of judgment; it is irresponsible.
This administration is neither compassionate nor conservative. Bush opposes affirmative action, stating that access to scholarship should be based on merit, yet his attendance at Andover and Yale was without merit other than his surname. His vice president used his office to create an energy policy that benefits the corporate sector and the architects of which remain secret in spite of efforts to gain disclosure. We are engaged in a costly war with no exit strategy directed at a despot with no ties to the terrorists of 9/11, none of whom were Iraqi. Most were Saudi, but the Bush conflict of interest precludes any action against that totalitarian regime.
The Courant can bear some of the responsibility for a reconstituted Supreme Court that will not only intervene in close elections but will take civil rights guaranteed to citizens away from women and homosexuals.
Vance L. Cannon
Canaan
Security Is The Issue
The Courant's endorsement of President Bush correctly sees security as the overriding, central issue of the campaign. Without security, all other campaign issues dissolve into obscurity.
Peter Kushkowski
Haddam
Bad Dream
Sounds incredible, but I just dreamed that The Courant actually endorsed George W. Bush for another four years. Somebody wake me up, please!
Barbara Coughlin
Berlin
Courant Should Do Penance
I was momentarily stunned when I read The Courant's endorsement of President Bush for a second term. Do the newspaper's editorial writers read the national and world news reported in their newspaper each day?
I then remembered that this is the same group that endorsed Bush for his first term and John Rowland for his ill-fated third term. Penance is the appropriate response for such recommendations. Instead, The Courant has chosen to admit no error and offers only more of the same. Perhaps its identification with President Bush is not so surprising.
Stephanie Partyka
Mansfield
Operatives At Work
The ringing endorsement of Bush led me to the conclusion that the ultimate decision-makers at The Courant are more Republican operatives than professional journalists. It is The Courant's responsibility to provide thoughtful analysis and facts. John Kerry is not a perfect choice by any means, but he is certainly the lesser of two evils - far better than mudslingers portray him.
Marcia Thomas
Avon
Lukewarm Approval
The Courant's namby-pamby endorsement of George W. Bush was an underwhelming disappointment. Let's at least hear an endorsement with some conviction! Something comparable to the ringing endorsement of John Kerry by The New York Times on Oct. 17.
You're going to have to muster something more persuasive to save George Bush from his own abominable record.
David Morse
Storrs
Multi-Dimensional Failures
The Courant is correct in stating that President Bush has not been "a one-dimensional president concerned only with security" - his failures have been both broad and consistent.
I did find humor in the editorial's recommended policy changes for the next four years, should Bush be elected Nov. 2; I'm sure he'll make all the right choices in regards to spending, foreign relations, civil liberties and the environment.
Kevin Shugrue
Middletown
Loyal Reader Is Torn
I am hurt. I am angry. I am appalled. For more than 15 years, I have subscribed to The Courant from distant Hamden as the best, and the only literate, newspaper in Connecticut.
Now it has placed me in an impossible situation.
This ill-advised, superficial survey of Mr. Bush's errors - which sees the high-end tax cuts, the Medicare manipulation, the No Child Left Behind fiasco and the horribly expensive and counterproductive war in Iraq as the "leadership" of a "decisive" president - cannot have been written by someone who has dispassionately read what this newspaper has reported over the last four years. The editorial reads, instead, like a White House press release. The Courant has original thinkers on its staff; none of them wrote this.
I cannot financially support a news organization whose editorial position is so at odds with its objective editorial content.
As a good liberal, I will, no doubt, reconsider this decision in light of my daily loss of The Courant's many talented reporters and writers and Mr. Kerry's eventual victory. My world is not black and white. But, for now, I am sorry to see The Courant go.
Roger Smith
Hamden
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
