PDA

View Full Version : NY Times endorses John Kerry


Midnight Son
10-17-2004, 06:53 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.

Not really a surprise, but good nonetheless.

Jakub
10-17-2004, 08:35 AM
I, for one, am surprised.

Gideongamer
10-17-2004, 09:50 AM
I, for one, am surprised.

How so? The New York Times has supported almost every Democratic liberal candidate via their op-ed pages for 50 years.

russellmz00
10-17-2004, 10:05 AM
I, for one, am surprised.

How so? The New York Times has supported almost every Democratic liberal candidate via their op-ed pages for 50 years.

"i think it would be ironic if we were all made of IRON." - caboose, from redvsblue.com

Linoleum
10-17-2004, 10:57 AM
The last Republican candidate the NYT endorsed was Eisenhower, and you're surprised?

I'll admit to being a bit surprised that the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Bush (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0410170332oct17,1,3673281.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed). (how I love bugmenot)

This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

JeffL
10-17-2004, 01:25 PM
Yeah, I was pretty surprised at the Chicago Tribune endorsement. This (IL) is a Democrat state, and the Tribune has a reputation of being a more Dem leaning paper. I assumed Kerry would have that one locked up. (I haven't see the Chicago Sun-Times endorsement yet.)

russellmz00
10-17-2004, 02:16 PM
Yeah, I was pretty surprised at the Chicago Tribune endorsement. This (IL) is a Democrat state, and the Tribune has a reputation of being a more Dem leaning paper. I assumed Kerry would have that one locked up. (I haven't see the Chicago Sun-Times endorsement yet.)

according to left leaning dailykos, chicago's "daily herald" backed kerry. they described it as distributed to chicago suburbs and hadn't endorsed a dem in 16 years.

their motto is: "Our aim: To fear God, tell the truth, and make money"

JeffL
10-17-2004, 03:43 PM
Yeah, I was pretty surprised at the Chicago Tribune endorsement. This (IL) is a Democrat state, and the Tribune has a reputation of being a more Dem leaning paper. I assumed Kerry would have that one locked up. (I haven't see the Chicago Sun-Times endorsement yet.)

according to left leaning dailykos, chicago's "daily herald" backed kerry. they described it as distributed to chicago suburbs and hadn't endorsed a dem in 16 years.

their motto is: "Our aim: To fear God, tell the truth, and make money"

Yeah, we get the Daily Herald, it covers the West suburbs (Naperville, Lisle, Aurora, etc.) It's not really a Chicago paper as much as a West Suburbs paper.

Ranulf
10-17-2004, 05:14 PM
I'm genuinely surprised. I really thought the NYT would break their mold and support Nader. Oh, well. :D

Jakub
10-18-2004, 11:29 AM
The last Republican candidate the NYT endorsed was Eisenhower, and you're surprised?
I'm shocked, actually.

I thought they'd refuse to endorse a candidate and plead for Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan to run.

But hey, we're all wrong sometimes.

steve
10-18-2004, 01:51 PM
Why do newspapers back candidates?

KiloOhm
10-18-2004, 04:44 PM
Why do newspapers back candidates?

To push their agenda by helping the uninformed make their decision easier.

"Duh....dis papa' supports candidate x so he must be good!, the media wouldn't lie to me!"