Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tampa Tribune: Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Purrfessor Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:37 PM
Original message
Tampa Tribune: Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election
Edited on Sun Oct-17-04 06:54 PM by Purrfessor
W e find ourselves in a position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and ``moderate man of mainstream convictions'' who promised to wield military muscle only as a last resort and to resist the lure of ``nation building.''

<snip>

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.

<snip>

The Tribune has endorsed a Republican for president ever since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, with one exception. We did not endorse in the 1964 presidential race because, as we said at the time, ``it is our feeling that unless a newspaper can recommend a candidate with complete conviction that he be the better choice for the office, it should make no endorsement.''

(Below are some of the headers for each section of the article)



Bush Overstated The Evidence

No Dissension Allowed

More Fear Ahead

Bush's Spending Ways

Government Behind Closed Doors

The Failed Compassionate Conservative



Coming from the Tampa Tribune this is a major insult to both Bush and Jeb. I don't know how much bearing it will have on the election, but it should at least cause some Bay Area Bush supporters to reevaluate their position.

It should also carry some influence with undecided voters within the Central Florida region.


http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JimmyJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. I just realized that in all the speeches and debates, I have not
heard Bush claim to be a success as a "uniter." I guess even he wouldn't believe that much bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He said he did a good job of uniting in Texas, but DC must be
different. It's Washington's fault, not his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. But they didn't...............
endorse Kerry? Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purrfessor Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. No, they didn't endorse Kerry, but that's not really the issue....
Edited on Sun Oct-17-04 06:52 PM by Purrfessor
The Tribune is extremely conservative, and although they didn't endorse Kerry, their failure to endorse Bush will still help Kerry to some extent. The article really lays out Bush's failures, including the No Child Left Behind act.

While they do question Kerry's ability to lead, the bulk of the article is an attack against Bush; therefore we should not dismiss its importance simply because the Tribune chooses not to endorse Kerry either.

Sorry about the link.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Gotta give 'em props; they avoided twisting themselves into
pretzel logic trying to find validation to endorse Commander Bunnypants.

The Arizona Republic tied itself up in logistical knots in their endorsement.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/artic...

I'm still shaking my head in :wtf:ness!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Florida_Geek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. While this will not change the hardcore right
IMHO, the undecides will have an eye awaking with this article.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Proof that Republicans are idiots.
The choice is Bush or Kerry, not Bush or Not Bush. They are like little chidren putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and going lalalalala instead of acting like responsible adults and facing the fact that A CHOICE MUST BE MADE.

George W. Bush is partially the result of the cumulative effect of THEIR past GOP endorsements and a more responsible newspaper (like the Seattle Times or Portland Oregonian) would endorse John Kerry if they felt that they had made a mistake endorsing Bush previously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bush lied us into a war
They get that, but they don't understand Kerry's position and refusal to continue to support Bush's mangling of the war. Okaaay. At least they didn't endorse Bush and attacked him mercilessly. That's good enough I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. They're right wing shills, but there's some good stuff there:
When asked if he consulted his father, the only other president to have waged war against Iraq, Bush unabashedly said that he spoke to a ``higher father.'' Presidential decisions about sending men and women to war should be based on fact, not prayer.

Still, the president seems like a nice guy. He is plain-spoken and says what he means. People who've met him come away impressed. If he were a drinking man, they say, they would enjoy having a beer with him. But we're not electing Mr. Congeniality. We're electing the leader of the free world and should set a higher standard than likability.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MatrixEscape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-17-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. From the endorsements I have seen that finger *
If Chimp did win, what kind of freekin' Presidency would that be then?

I mean, there are so many scathing anti-dorsments that put his first term in a trash heap. It's like a negi-mandate or something.

All other reasons aside, that is all the reason not to re-elect this walking WMD. His reputation recedes him. The shame of four more years is greater than any benfits some people imagine from a second-term.

To me, that is another GREAT reason to put Kerry in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC