Tampa Tribune withholds endorsement

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

___

Dave Farber  +1 412 726 9889



...... Forwarded Message .......
From: Benjamin Kuipers <kuipers () cs utexas edu>
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Benjamin Kuipers <kuipers () cs utexas edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:55:37 -0500
Subj: Tampa Tribune withholds endorsement


Dave,

For IP if you wish.

The Tampa Tribune is staunchly conservative.

Ben


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

Oct 17, 2004
Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election

We 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.''

We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the presidential race, 
skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed 
by the performance of President George W. Bush.

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.

Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose undistinguished Senate record 
stands at odds with our conservative principles and whose positions on the 
Iraq war - the central issue in this campaign - have been difficult to 
distinguish or differentiate.

It is an achingly difficult decision to not endorse a candidate in the 
presidential contest, and we do not reach this decision lightly.

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.''

Like the country, this editorial board finds itself deeply divided about 
the president's prosecution of the war and his indifference to federal 
spending.

Bush Overstated The Evidence

Although Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, the nation 
rallied behind him after the terrorist strikes of 9/11. He transcended the 
political divide and became everyone's president the moment he picked up 
that bullhorn on the ashes of ground zero and promised the terrorists that 
they would hear from us. Aside from a few dancing extremists, the world 
stood with us.

Bush told us to wait, and we confidently stood with him. With surety and 
resolve, he struck Afghanistan and the hillside holes of al-Qaida 
extremists. For taking out the Taliban and bringing about national 
elections in Afghanistan this month, the president deserves much credit. 
While we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden, the ace of spades, our 
troops have successfully caught and imprisoned many other al-Qaida leaders.

But before securing Afghanistan, Bush grew convinced that Iraq posed an 
imminent threat to America and so directed soldiers and supplies there.

His administration terrified us into believing that we had to quickly wage 
war with Baghdad to ensure our safety. Vice President Dick Cheney said he 
had ``irrefutable evidence'' that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear 
program. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice wrongly asserted that 
aluminum tubes found in Iraq could be used only for nuclear weapons. And 
the president himself said he couldn't wait for a smoking gun in the form 
of a ``mushroom cloud.''

Again, this editorial board stood solidly with the president in his resolve 
to take the fight to the terrorists where they live, forever changing 
American foreign policy with our first-ever ``pre-emptive'' war.

Once we got to Baghdad, however, we found out that the president was wrong 
and that the reasons for launching the war were either exaggerated or 
inaccurate. There were no stockpiles of WMD and  no link between Saddam and 
the terrorists that struck on 9/11.

As it turns out, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration were 
bamboozled by dubious sources named Curveball and Chalabi, whose integrity 
and access to real- time information was repeatedly questioned by our own 
intelligence services.

No Dissension Allowed

But groupthink took hold among the neocons, while those with contrary 
points of view, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, were sidelined until 
after key decisions were made. It was almost as  though someone who asked 
tough questions was seen as siding with the terrorists.

When Gen. Eric Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, said that hundreds of 
thousands of troops would be needed to secure a postwar Iraq, his argument 
was dismissed and the general summarily pushed aside.

But after Baghdad fell, we saw how insufficient troop numbers led to the 
looting of hospitals, businesses and schools - everything but the Oil 
Ministry, which our forces secured.

At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said with great hubris that 
the uprising was ``untidy'' but not unexpected. And the president himself 
challenged the enemy to ``bring it on.''

Now we learn from Ambassador Paul Bremer, former presidential envoy to 
Iraq, that ``we never had enough troops on the ground'' to stop the 
insurgency. Baath party loyalists went underground only to launch a 
guerrilla campaign that makes Iraq less safe today than immediately after 
Baghdad fell.

The insurgents have taken back cities like Fallujah, which we mistakenly 
ceded to them last April. And they continue to undo the reconstruction of 
schools, roads, clinics and the electrical grid built by our troops and an 
array of mostly American contractors. Most problematic, they keep blowing 
up rebuilt oil pipelines whose revenues were supposed to pay for the 
reconstruction.

In one of his too-rare press conferences, the president stood strong in 
promising that Iraq would be sovereign by June 30, even though no one could 
identify who would get the keys to the country. Bush's resolve in meeting 
the deadline for the creation of an interim government was commendable.

Still, despite deliberate steps to rebuild Iraq, we find ourselves today in 
an open-ended war that has taken the lives of 1,081 American servicemen and 
women, and wounded or maimed 7,862 more.  Financially, the war has cost us 
$126 billion - money that could have been better spent securing the 
homeland - and is a major reason for the largest federal deficit in history.

More Fear Ahead

What bothers us is that the president says that even knowing what he knows 
now, he still would have invaded Iraq because Saddam had the ``intent'' to 
make nuclear weapons and was a ruthless dictator who killed his own people. 
If this nation-building succeeds, the president says, we will have built a 
friend in the Middle East.

Because of the invasion, one other renegade country - Libya - decided to 
disarm its nuclear program, a real success for the president.

Still, we are troubled by Bush's talk about a broad ``forward strategy of 
freedom'' to ``transform'' the Middle East. We believe it unwise to use our 
military to impose democracy on Arab countries, which would rather 
determine their own future. We fear this model of forced democracy will 
only fuel recruiting campaigns for terrorism.

And how about Iran and North Korea, who have considerably more advanced 
nuclear capabilities than Iraq ever had? Are we going to brashly send our 
overstretched military to war there too?

An American president should take the country to war only as a last resort, 
only after exhausting every diplomatic channel and only after asking 
demanding questions and weighing concrete evidence. On the Iraq war, 
President Bush failed on all counts.

The Iraq war came about because of a profound failure of intelligence that 
went unchecked and unquestioned by the president, who shows no sign of 
having second doubts. He admits to making no mistakes except for a few 
presidential appointments - presumably disloyal people who dared to speak 
up.

Bush's re-election campaign continues to stoke fear. ``You better have a 
president who faces these terrorists down before they hurt us again,'' he 
said in the first debate.

Cheney, who continues to maintain that Iraq was in league with al-Qaida 
despite evidence to the contrary, went so far as to say that electing Kerry 
would invite another terrorist strike.

We don't like Kerry's talk about a ``global test,'' but neither should we 
summarily dismiss the court of world opinion, which, you will remember, was 
with us less than three short years ago.

And finally, Bush has done little to broker peace between the Israelis and 
Palestinians, a conflict that continues to ferment hatred in the Arab world.

Bush's Spending Ways

While his prosecution of the war is the principal reason we cannot endorse 
the president's re-election, we are also deeply disappointed by his failure 
to control federal spending.

It must be said that Bush has been a friend to business, and his promise to 
simplify the tax code is alluring. He also has dramatically reduced 
government regulations that slow commerce and cost money. As one example, 
he rightfully ended the requirement that businesses report any employee 
complaint of carpal tunnel syndrome.

It should also be noted that his tax cuts spurred a sputtering economy and 
benefited not only the rich, but the middle class too. He doubled the child 
credit to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty and favored elimination of 
the death tax, all positions we supported.

However, although the numbers from recent months are more promising, the 
tax cuts did not spur the expected job growth. The nation has lost jobs 
during the Bush presidency, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's 
to oversee a net loss of jobs.

But while the recession, 9/11 and profligate spending by Congress have 
grown the deficit, two-thirds can be traced back to the president's tax 
cuts, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Bush's mistake was failing to couple tax cuts with reduced spending. 
Instead of asking some sacrifice from the public, he allowed Congress to 
keep spending, including a giveaway program of farm subsidies.

Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Even Franklin Roosevelt scaled 
back New Deal programs after Pearl Harbor.

The result: Bush has turned the $150 billion surplus he inherited into a 
$450 billion deficit.

At one point, Congress tried to impose some fiscal discipline. Lawmakers 
said they would not pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit if the cost 
exceeded $400 billion over 10 years.

So what did the administration do? It fudged the numbers.

Thomas Scully, former head of the Medicare agency, threatened to fire chief 
actuary Richard Foster if he dared to tell lawmakers that the true cost 
stood between $500 billion and $600 billion.

To make matters worse, the president's law prohibits Medicare from 
negotiating the best prices from pharmaceutical companies.

Against this backdrop of spending, Bush announced a mission to Mars and 
support for a missile shield defense system, a Cold War throwback that 
would be nice to have but wouldn't stop the car bombs and speedboats that 
are today's terrorists' weapons of choice.

At the same time, Bush has done nothing to shrink the size of the federal 
government. He has not cut one agency's budget. In fact, at the Department 
of Education, he has actually increased spending by 68 percent.

We support a strong and accountable education system, but we do not support 
the added layer of federal regulation that Bush has imposed on Florida 
schools through his No Child Left Behind act.

The president modeled his plan after Florida's A-Plus Plan, which was doing 
well enough by itself. Now we have two government programs that send 
conflicting messages to Florida parents, teachers and students.

Yet, while throwing money at programs of questionable urgency, Bush has 
failed to adequately fund the Department of Homeland Security. Penny- 
pinching there means firefighters and police still lack radios that can 
talk to one another, cargo shipments at airports and seaports are not 
screened, and hospitals and biohazard labs feel underfunded and 
underequipped.

Government Behind Closed Doors

At the birth of the 9/11 millennium, President Bush rallied us around a new 
world order that required some loss of freedoms so that the government 
could do a better job of protecting us.

He passed the Patriot Act, which, while not perfect, gives law enforcement 
agencies the much-needed ability to talk with one another.

While we supported the Patriot Act, we are concerned by the president's 
relentless attack on open government.

According to the libertarian Reason Foundation, Bush has nearly doubled the 
number of classified documents, urged agencies to refuse Freedom of 
Information Act requests and invoked executive privilege wherever possible.

His administration doesn't want citizens to know when hazardous chemicals 
are routed through their towns, how the repair of tenuous electric grids is 
going or who was at the table to form the nation's energy policy.

Typical of this administration, only industry lobbyists and like-minded 
people were allowed at the table to craft the energy plan. People who might 
dissent - consumer groups and conservationists - were not invited.

Within a year of Cheney's energy task force, the administration had given 
billions in subsidies to energy firms and begun weakening pollution laws 
while opening up wilderness areas to exploitation. The administration 
misled people by calling a plan to weaken pollution controls the Clear 
Skies initiative. As one example, the new law allows coal- burning power 
plants to avoid installing pollution-control equipment during renovations.

The Failed Compassionate Conservative

President Bush told us that he was ``uniter, not a divider,'' but shortly 
after taking office, his administration took a sharp right turn that has 
divided this country.

We were glad to see him sign the ban on late-term abortions. While we don't 
favor the criminalization of abortion, we want to see the number of 
abortions reduced. It is not uncommon to place limits on freedoms, such as 
freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. Limits on abortion can be 
justified too.

We also agree that religion and tradition define marriage as the union of a 
man and a woman. However, we believe marriage laws should rightfully be 
left to the states. We don't support the president's decision to engage 
this country in a fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Probably most disappointing, however, is his leadership in Washington.

Besides the White House, Republicans control the House and the Senate and 
all committee chairs. But rather than reach across the aisle, this 
president has deepened the divide in Congress, where Republican leaders 
have uninvited Democrats from conference committees where differences are 
reconciled. We would not condone such behavior from Democrats and shouldn't 
accept it from Republicans.

We had expected something different, given Bush's tenure in Texas.

People view Bush as a man with strong convictions. And while he's clearly 
convinced of the rightness of his ways, that doesn't mean he's always right.

This president doesn't try to hear from people who disagree, choosing 
instead to keep the counsel of staunch supporters. He disdains news 
conferences and brags that he doesn't read the newspapers. He counts on his 
core group of insiders to tell him what he needs to know.

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.

On a large scale, Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to be a 
compassionate conservative.

Kerry Concerns Us Too

We have written today mostly about Bush because he was our choice the last 
time around and we believed his conservative principles were most closely 
aligned with ours.

But neither do we see the senator from Massachusetts as someone we can 
endorse.

We're not sure what Kerry thinks. He supported the war in Iraq, then 
opposed adequately funding the troops. His plan to secure the peace in Iraq 
is to cozy up to European countries that don't have our interests at heart.

This is the same man who as a senator for 20 years has no significant 
legislation to his name and voted against all of the major weapons systems 
that have made America the most powerful country in the world.

Kerry would repeal Bush's tax cut for Americans who earn more than 
$200,000, but he doesn't say how he would create his promised 10 million 
jobs. And he promises to lower health insurance premiums, though the math 
looks fuzzy.

He made veracity an issue by putting his noble service in Vietnam front and 
center in his campaign. He wants to be treated as a hero, but 30 years ago 
he claimed Americans committed atrocities. He seems shocked that people 
doubt him and don't consider him a hero.

Early Voting Starts Tomorrow

When early voting opens in Florida on Monday, you can begin going to the 
polls to pick the leader you think will best protect us and move our 
country forward.

The president's backers argue that his resolve and strength prove him to be 
the best leader for the next four years. Kerry's people argue that it's 
time for a change.

You've heard from the candidates and you've heard our analysis.

Now it's time for you to vote.

Voting is a matter of faith, since no one can predict what either candidate 
will do. Voting is a personal choice, one of the most personal things we 
do. We encourage you to look deep within yourself and choose the candidate 
you think most clearly represents your views.

Of one thing we are certain: America is the greatest country on earth and 
will survive, no matter the outcome on Nov. 2.
This story can be found at: http://tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html

--

Benjamin Kuipers, Professor         email:  kuipers () cs utexas edu
Computer Sciences Department        tel:    1-512-471-9561
University of Texas at Austin       fax:    1-512-471-8885
Austin, Texas 78712 USA             http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kuipers

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/