Endorsements of the Presidential candidates by high-profile US newspapers have begun, but according to a story on CNN, the Tampa (Florida) Tribune, which has endorsed Republicans for president in every election but one in the past half-century, said it would issue no endorsement this year.
The newspaper said its “deeply conflicted” editorial board could not back Bush “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.”
But the paper said it could not endorse 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.”
Actually, not a bad summary of the admittedly complex issues at hand.
MSNBC/Newsweek has a good opinion piece by Richard Wolffe on Kerry’s record in the Senate. As suggested by Wolffe, Kerry’s record has been downplayed by his handlers because it’s relatively light on domestic legislation.
As a Massachusetts resident, this strikes me as pretty much on the mark: I’ve found Kerry’s staff through the years to be consistently uninterested in constituent concerns, whether personal or political. Except for the recently re-publicized squeaker against William Weld, Kerry’s Senatorial re-election campaigns have pretty much been on cruise control, won by virtue of his close association with Ted Kennedy.
As a Libertarian, I believe that most of the problems we face are due to the involvement of government in areas which it clearly does not belong: for example, the pre-emptive takeover of a foreign country.
And while some regulation of private businesses may be a necessary evil, it also opens government to a worse evil in the form of influence-peddling via obscene levels of campaign contributions and spending, funded largely by groups and individuals with a selfish ax to grind.
But if you believe the “experts”, half of the voters in this election are ignoring the substantive issues: the human and financial cost of Iraq, a potential reinstatement of the draft, the long-term impact of record deficits, the inevitable erosion of Social Security and Medicare, etc.
Rather, 50% of the electorate is making decisions on the candidates based mainly on “wedge” issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage.
For example: the weekend polls seem to show a pullback in the “bounce” Kerry got from the Presidential debates, and some analysts conclude that this is a result of two things: Bush’s success in castigating Kerry as a “liberal”, as well as public revulsion to Kerry’s inappropriate reference to Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation in the last debate.
That there has been no corresponding public revulsion at the attempt by certain leaders of the Catholic Church to influence the vote in favor of George Bush is disturbing, especially since Bush’s position on capital punishment and other public policies is clearly in conflict with Catholic dogma.
Except for Maureen Dowd’s indignant editorial on the subject (Some of the bishops – the shepherds of a church whose hierarchy bungled the molestation and rape of so many young boys by tolerating it, covering it up, enabling it, excusing it and paying hush money – are still debating whether John Kerry should be allowed to receive communion.), I haven’t seen any commentary in either the mainstream or alternative press on this subject.
The unravelling of the American middle class is, perhaps, so frightening that people are numbed to the possibility. As a result, the public seems to have lost the moral capacity to recoil at the revolting hypocrisy of the Catholic bishops, not to mention the ever more sickening stories about prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and the maiming of innocent little ones in Iraq.
This country, which is so fortunate and has so much, seems to be locked into a siege mentality, and no wonder, considering what the federal government has done to us over the last 3 1/2 years.
I wonder, then, if low and middle income voters find some perverse comfort in projecting their fears about economic instability on a nebulous bunch of Islamic terrorists, women with unwanted pregnancies, embryos, and gay people who wish to get married.
Perhaps there is an unconscious realization that we really ARE in trouble. And given the American obsession with being “right” and winning at all costs, blaming terrorists rather than admitting a mistake is easier on the conscience – and the egos – of those who voted for Bush and his minions in 2000.