« Hybrid Humans | Main | Another oops - potentially very LOUD. »

The Statesman's Endorsement

The Austin American-Statesman endorsed George Bush, which was a surprise given Austin's liberal character and reputation. There was a rumor that local staff wanted to support Kerry, but were overruled by the paper's publisher. I wondered how the paper's editorial supported its endorsement, so I did a bit of reading and analysis. Here are some excerpts from the editorial, with my comments:

"Americans should ask themselves whether they really believe that European nations critical of the war effort will intervene in Iraq if Sen. John F. Kerry is elected president. They won't."

BS - the fact that they were critical of the war effort doesn't mean they wouldn't participate in a cooperative effort to clean up the mess Bush et al have made there.

"Further, we should ask whether they really believe that anything less than a fundamental change in the way Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are funded is adequate to meet future demands."

What "fundamental change" are we talking about here? Bush has proposed no clear plan other than diversion of some funds into individual investment accounts, which would incidentally result in something like $940 billion in profits for financial services firms over 75 years. Meanwhile Bush's record deficits compromise funding for all programs.

"changing administrations now might embolden enemies who believe that Americans don't have the stomach or the patience for the kind of protracted, unconventional warfare in which we are engaged."

Why would that be? Kerry has said - quite clearly - that he will not end the war on terror - because the terrorist threat is clear and likely to persist - or the war in Iraq - because the commitment's made and we can't simply pull out. If enemies initially assume otherwise, that won't last long. There's no squishiness about Kerry, he's clearly equipped to be a strong commander-in-chief - much better equipped than Bush, whose dubious military experience and his foreign relations inexperience was hardly the foundation for a turn as commander of U.S. forces. (Re. foreign relations - remember that Bush had never been outside the U.S., with the exception of a few trips to Mexico, before he became president.)

"Though Kerry is an honorable man who knows firsthand the horrors of war, he is deluding himself if he thinks a different administration will change the outlook of a foe that doesn't make war on an individual administration, but on the West in general and the United States in particular."

I have two problems with that paragraph. First, I don't know that Kerry has ever suggested that he will "change the outlook" of terrorists. (In fact, I kept hearing him say he would track them down and kill them - which might qualify as an outlook change, but really.) The other is th at I don't know about this "doesn't make war on an individual administration" bit. The documented connections between the Bush and bin Laden families raise questions. When I heard of them, I couldn't help but wonder whether Osama's grudge is narrower than we've realized.

The editorial has a section on domestic policy, but oddly enough, it seems to conclude that Bush is screwing up. And under the section on "Civil Liberties, Appointments," the Statesman says that Ashcroft must go, and Bush should make balanced appointments (I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though, would you?) So it seems that where most stuff is concerned, the Statesman doesn't really favor the Bush administration, but they've endorsed him anyway.

I do get the feeling, after writing this and thinking about it, that the staff at the Statesman wanted to endorse Kerry. This editorial feels like a compromise... a weak endorsement of Bush based on gloss about some of his positions, but also filled with criticism that actually comes across louder than the supportive part.

jon posted this at 12:11 PM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

 Subscribe to RSS feed for Weblogsky