I'm originally from Indianapolis. The Star is a truly conservative paper - extremely mediocre, no less - completely worthless.* The fact that they endorse Bush is no surprise. What IS refreshing is how unhappy they are about it. Check it out:
Here's there endorsement of *:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/186935-2809-021.htmlIn 2nd term, Bush must unify nation by admitting errors, seeking remedies
- October 17, 2004
Our position is: President Bush must use a second term to protect and unify the nation.
The tightness of this year's race for president speaks volumes about the unsatisfying choice facing voters: George W. Bush vs. the anti-Bush.
<snip>
... He accepted flawed intelligence about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and when the truth became known, stubbornly refused to acknowledge it. A little more than two months after the war started, he flew to an aircraft carrier in the Pacific and gave Americans the impression the war was all but over. More than 940 of the nearly 1,100 American casualties in the war have occurred since the "Mission Accomplished" sign was displayed on the flight deck of that aircraft carrier.
The task of rebuilding Iraq was poorly planned, and the lack of a coherent approach has been sharply criticized by thoughtful stalwarts of the president's own party, including Indiana's senior U.S. senator, Richard Lugar.
The president adamantly refuses to listen to those who question him. He has insulated himself from voices he doesn't want to hear and suggests that those who question his Iraq policies are playing into the hands of the enemy....
Meanwhile, the president, who now labels John Kerry the master of flip-flops, played politics with steel tariffs, presided over an economic policy that is producing huge budget deficits, and expanded Medicare into one of the more expensive social programs ever known. He has mocked his critics, and in the process has proved to be a divider rather than a unifier, feeding the growing national tendency for Americans to work against, rather than with, each other in developing solutions to common problems.***
The editorial goes on to say that despite all they dislike about Bush, Kerry is "undistinguished" and "has not offered a convincing case that he would do better."
Then the editorial goes off the deep end and abandons all logic in celebrating Bush's "strong and resolute" leadership, touting the improved economic performance, the job growth and inflation rate that are "under control" and the "many challenges" that he has had to face over the past 4 years. Then they conclude by saying: "It is time for experience and resolve, which is why George Bush should be re-elected for a second term," which they following by saying that without the political pressures of another reelection campaign, Bush can be free to make good on the promises of his FIRST campaign, such as uniting the country, admitting mistakes, and listening to those who disagree with him!
To me this just shows how out-of-touch so many GOP'ers are. I'm not counting the Star as a "smart" source - they're an incredibly mediocre paper with incredibly dumbed down standards of journalism. But even so, I've talked to so many smart, well-informed, pragmatic Conservatives who are completely going against all their ideals and against their own heads in voting for Bush, insisting that despite Bush's obvious incompetence and stubborness, despite his irresponsibility and his ideological rigidity, despite everything they hate about him, he's being "strong and resolute" and Kerry would be disastrous. Tell me, how could it be any worse?
Anyway, sorry for my bit of editorializing at the end. Just read the IndyStar editorial. It's illustrative of the fact that even the GOP really isn't that enthusiastic about Bush - they just have whipped themselves, even against their better judgement, into Kerry-hatred as a motivating tool.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
