Slashdot Mirror
Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry
ramoth4 writes "Local Crawford, TX (Bush's adopted hometown) paper The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. Kerry's home paper, the Boston Globe, hasn't come out with an endorsement yet. It's a very interesting editorial, especially in light of Bush's performance in the first debate."
The interesting thing about the pre-existing partisanship comes out in the editorial- where they go through every single instance of supporting the President going back to the 2000 campaign, and exactly how he failed in EVERY instance. In addition, I found the section on what his real campaign promises should have been to be quite interesting- and they're right, nobody would have voted for what he actually accomplished.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.
can't admit mistakes.
Good plan.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
From the Lowell, MA paper: Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
--trb
Social Security as it exists today is a massive government mandated pyramid scheme that lets politicians in Washington dupe millions of people out of hard earned money on the grounds that it's "for retirement". In truth had the government issued savings bonds (the lowest yeild investment you can get) to everyone on Social Security everybody would have been better off. The government could have used the lower interest debt to pay off higher interest debt and the retireees would have more money. Furthermore the retirees would know EXACTLY how much money they have for retirement and know it is gauranteed instead of having some vague promise subject to political whims. Instead, the current scheme was concocted where people working today pay for those who worked before them and they in turn will be paid for by those who work after them. Obviously this rely's on the pool of workers never dropping, a rediculous assumption. Furthermore, as it is, the payouts on Social Security for almost all beneficiaries are below inflation (that is they are getting less value out then they put in) and served as a worse investment than savings bonds (which is considered the lowest return you should every accept and then only in small ammounts). While this isn't that big of a deal for those of us making enough money to plan for retirement without social security, many people who are less fortunate then us NEED that money to be invested wisely so that they CAN retire. Ripping them off for political gains is amoral behavior and should stop. What we need to do is get the government and it's bueracray out of running a retirement bussiness. Steps:
- Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in. Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has. This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
- The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
- Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's ironic, but meaningless. The owner/editor is a Democrat who has run for office, been defeated, and doesn't live in Crawford.
Most of the town residents have started boycotting the paper since the editorial ran.
Quotes from various places in the article:
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda."
"He let us down."
"He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong."
"Again, he let us down."
"Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House."
People in Crawford are in a position to know George W. Bush a little better than most citizens. It seems that the newspaper is merely saying openly what a lot of people in that town think.
Also, Bush's alcoholism is a matter of importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW?. For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing. Did he fall off the wagon again?
--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."
Doesn't Kerry support a "Family Farm" loophole for the death tax? Of course, I'm in an area of the country where a family farm rarely exceeds 100 acres and $900,000 in value, and so family farms haven't been swallowed up as quickly by agribusinesses here.
However, having said that- there's something I could support Bush on if I was convinced that he'd do anything about it properly (that is, relieve the family farmer without putting in a giant loophole to allow all his friends to continue to hoard liquidity for multiple generations).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I suspect the only way you can call Bush a conservative is if you define "conservative" as "arrogant, narrow minded, bible thumping belligerent moron".
Unfortunately, rather than the actual definition of conservative which you have described rather adeptly, the above seems to be more about what the "conservative" movement has been about for the last couple of decades.
If they could weed out the religious nuts pushing for the Rapture, the conservatives might have my vote. As it is, they can burn in their hells where they are undoubtably going.
This isn't a respectable paper. Its founder was a very virulent anti-Baptist writer. One who took very negative views of black Americans.
Nah, I don't think I would want this endorsement, regardless of how many years since its founding. The original founder is just to shameful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Talk is cheap, bullshit is free, vote the record.
XML causes global warming.