The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has endorsed George W. Bush for another term as president. Normally, I don't think publishing a Bush endorsement would necessarily be worthy of a Kos diary, but this endorsement is so laughable and sad that it's worth sharing. Forgive me if this has already been diary'ed; I looked but didn't find one.
The Star-Telegram's endorsement can't find one thing that he's done right. They point out that Bush pledged to be a uniter, but has failed. They point out that Bush has squandered the worldwide goodwill offered by other nations after 9/11. They are also disturbed by the situation in Iraq.
And if that's not enough of a reason to not endorse Bush, they also hammer his domestic policies, including health care, jobs, deficits, social security, medicare, his failure to veto just one spending bill, and his overall fiscal responsibility failures. Reads like a Kerry endorsement! More below the fold...
But in the last few paragraphs of the endorsement, they fall back on the only reason they can come up with to endorse this failure of a president. Why are they endorsing him? Because he's a Republican.
The full scathing "endorsement" can be found here:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/9936250.htm
For education purposes, I'm also posting the published endorsement below.
----------
Backing the old George W. Bush
Star-Telegram
When George W. Bush ran for president four years ago, this newspaper's recommendation that he be elected was based in part on the Republican's seven-year performance in Texas.
As governor of Texas (and with the help of Democrats in positions of power in the state's House and Senate), Bush demonstrated an admirable ability to build consensus across party lines in Austin.
The need for such a skill was glaringly apparent in a national capital fractured by partisan rancor.
Sadly, Washington is not Austin -- and for the man who pledged to be a uniter rather than a divider, the restoration of civility in the halls of Congress remains more of a challenge than when he arrived.
Perhaps that is the single greatest challenge for the nation and its president -- more than the war against terrorism or the war in Iraq, more than the sluggish economy, more than the array of domestic issues in America, more than the growing deficit.
If we were truly the United States, all of those issues and others could be more easily faced.
In a nation divided almost 50-50 politically, with a Senate roughly the same and with the Republican Party in narrow control in the House, the cooperative atmosphere that Bush fostered in Texas is in greater demand than ever.
We remain convinced that Bush can lead that healing. We've seen him do it. And that is why we are recommending that he be re-elected president of the United States.
It is not that we are particularly pleased with Bush's first term.
Tax cuts are proper when a government is taking in more money than it needs. But Bush's unwavering focus on such cuts despite evidence that the projected budget surplus was gone, that deficits were mounting and that there was a war to be fought and paid for has been troubling.
After 9-11, Bush clearly demonstrated the leadership that the nation needed in that tragic hour. The move against the Taliban in Afghanistan was swift and sure, and elections have been held in that country. That is at least a step forward.
The Iraq situation is less positive. The Star-Telegram Editorial Board strongly questioned the basis for the invasion. Little has happened since then to change that position.
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal menace, especially to his own people, is unquestionable. But that was not the administration's principal rationale for an invasion. The reason was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction -- and that reason has evaporated.
Worse, in a seeming rush to war, the feelings of other nations -- nations that had in some cases declared that they, too, were Americans in the smoke of the twin towers -- were unnecessarily bruised. We fear that much good will was squandered.
And there appears to be no sure strategy for ending the American military involvement in Iraq.
Domestically, Social Security remains a problem, Medicare demands a fix, and the nation must deal with increasing waves of immigration. Environmental standards have slipped.
More Americans have lost health care coverage, jobs are growing too slowly (except in government), and both trade and budget deficits are growing at an alarming pace.
Bush surprised many members of his own party. Initiating a new entitlement program -- a prescription drug benefit added to Medicare, for example -- was not what many wanted to see from a Republican president.
Further, we question whether Bush has been well-served by his closest advisers. His well-documented loyalty keeps him from questioning their decision-making in public, but surely in his private moments he must wonder about the quality of counsel that he has received.
And Congress -- both major parties included -- is out of control fiscally.
As one pundit recently noted, the production of pork is the only bipartisan activity left in Washington, D.C.
Not all of these issues are of Bush's making, of course, nor are they under his control. But he can exercise great influence over both his party and the opposition.
He has yet to veto a spending bill. But sharply worded messages to Congress, coupled with the sure knowledge that he will wield his veto power, would bring the sobering fiscal restraint now sorely lacking.
With such a litany of concerns, readers might well wonder why we are recommending Bush's re-election.
It is because he has the best chance of dealing with these issues and others yet unknown during the next four more years. Some things require a leader with demonstrated credentials -- as when Richard Nixon, a well-documented anti-communist, achieved the opening of relations with mainland China.
Given the political leanings of the nation and Congress, it requires a Republican president -- it requires George W. Bush -- to be able to make, and sell, the difficult decisions that the next four years will bring.
But there are cautions.
If making the tax cuts permanent is to be the centerpiece of Bush's domestic fiscal policy in his second term, he must be equally forceful about reducing spending.
Without the pressure of having to run for office again, Bush should examine those in his Cabinet and his closest advisers to rid himself of ideologues in favor of clear-eyed decision-makers who are free of undue political considerations.
If he is re-elected, we expect to see and hear a vocal Bush forcefully proposing a clean policy for fiscal restraint coupled with compassion -- and using his veto power to enforce it.
In short, we expect to see the George W. Bush whom we sent to Washington in the first place.
----------