**Argus Leader Makes Peculiar and Peculiarly Weak Endorsement of Bush

Argus says, Clear choice: George W. Bush
http://www.argusleader.com/editorial/Sundayarticle1.shtml
Argus Endorses Bush Oct 24, 2004
Editorial Board
Argus Leader

published: 10/24/2004

The Argus Editorial endorsement of George W. Bush appears to have been written by a strange committee made up of at least one Bush supporter who would support him even if he were found in bed with a live male teenager or a dead female choked with pretzels. It apparently also had a few so uninterested in politics and government as to be "undecided" since the editorial appears to have more reasons for opposing him than supporting him. There may have been a few tepid Kerry supporters or researchers doing the work that went beyond simply expressing an editorial preference. The only good thing about this rather mediocre and tepid support of Bush is that South Dakota is so blindly Republican in its support of the Texas Twit that even somebody with Kerry's achievements and history would not stand a chance of winning even if every paper and every other kind of media endorsed Kerry; but the Bush endorsement will add extra credibility to any endorsements of Herseth or Daschle should they happen.

Below is most of the text of the Argus Editorial in italic text with any of my comments in regular text.

Issue after issue, the president offers more decisive leadership
It may be "decisive", but he has been wrong on nearly every issue. His positions are more "divisive" than "decisive". When Bush has had a choice on nearly every issue he has taken the wrong road or has taken the most expedient direction without regard to unintended consequences. His decisive administration will be a model for failed decision making.

We have a clear choice for president.
Yes, But it happens to be John Kerry rather than GWB, the Prevaricator in Chief and specialist in vacations away from the White House.

We can choose a man who can make decisions and has the courage of his convictions.
Another way to say the same thing as in the first line, but still offering no reason to support Bush. The only conviction I have seen in Bush is that Republican virtue follows money--no matter how it was stolen.
Or we can chose a man who can't and doesn't.
This is plain bullshit. There is no polite way to describe this assertion so completely separated from obvious fact.

We must choose President George Bush - a far from perfect president but the better of the two.
"Far from perfect president" has to be one of the greater understatements I have seen and certainly offers no reason to follow it with "but the better of the two".

Sen. John Kerry was the Democrats' accidental nominee, because no one of any stature entered the race.
More blissful ignorance expressed as fact. Kerry was no accidental nominee. He ran a very tough successful campaign against a number of candidates with more stature and knowledge than Bush has ever had or will ever have. I preferred Howard Dean who had more experience than did the Texas Twit when he ran for President and certainly demonstrated the courage of his convictions and his ability to make decisions. Even Lieberman who I detest for his sanctimonious nature had more stature than did Bush when he ran or even has now after his gross mismanagement of the executive department.
Bush had little experience that did not require having his butt be saved by his father's monied cronies.

His 20 years in the U.S. Senate have represented nothing more than marking time. Never once did he sponsor important or meaningful legislation. He's neither an originator nor a leader.
Kerry has led several investigations which led to legislation and had other impacts. The BCC Bank scandal and its connections to the Republican money machine being one. In any case if he did one thing per year of public service, he would have more accomplishments than did Bush in his whole lifetime.
.
Kerry based his candidacy on an admittedly laudable - if brief - Vietnam performance of more than 30 years ago. Yet when he was challenged by the swift-boat group, he dropped that campaign issue like a hot potato.
This borders on being libel. However "brief" his service may have been, one week of
it was more than Bush did. Kerry did not got AWOL to work on a campaign to get
him out of Texas so his shabby behavior would not be an embarrassment to his father.
"Vietnam" had been dropped by the Kerry campaign nearly as soon as the Democratic convention was over. I think it would have been much better to hammer Bush on his AWOL guard status and leadership failures, but I suspect some polling must have led them to put so much emphasis on Kerry's leadership in Vietnam.

He's not a fighter.
What the hell is this supposed to communicate? Kerry has been a fighter in war and peace. If he does not sucker for the Rove/Bush campaign blather, that does not mean he is "not a fighter".

Though it's been clear since the race started that Iraq would - or should - be a major issue, it took Kerry the better part of a year to find a way to explain his position in a way that could be understood.
I don't think it took him the better part of a year to explain his position. It took some time to express it in a way that could not be easily and intentionally perverted by the Bush propaganda machine and the corporate crony media into something he never said or implied. I suspect a matter of pride was also involved. No doubt it would be hard for him to admit he was snookered in a matter of war and peace by a President and an administration to which truth means nothing if it does not aid in political expedience.

And even now, he hasn't offered a clear way of resolving the Iraq mess, other than to argue that he - in the face of strong evidence to the contrary - could develop a broad-based international coalition to help.
There is no "strong evidence to the contrary", there is not even weak evidence to the contrary. Bush is the poison preventing any serious broad coalition. There are more than a few indications that more nations would be supporting or supporting more vigorously the US position in Iraq if anybody but Bush was President.

President Bush offers a much clearer vision for the future of our nation. And with international events likely to dominate the next four years, it's important we have someone in the White House who has that vision, who can make decisions, who has the courage of his convictions.
Another restatement of the same contentless and baseless previous statements attempting to provide a reason for selecting Bush. Bush doesn't have a clear vison of anything except the next election. He doesn't even have "nuance" let alone vision. He is no better than his old man who indicated he had problems "with this vision thing". Having conviction in his eminently wrong decisions seems more reason to fear four more years of his mal-administration rather than reason to support him.

That being said, there have been some troubling aspects to the Bush presidency:
This has to be one of the greatest editorial understatements of the 20th or 21st centuries.

• Evidence now clearly shows there - at the very least - was a breakdown of intelligence about the danger Iraq posed with weapons of mass destruction. Despite a strong basis for doubt about allegations of WMDs, administration officials plowed ahead with their own war plan.
They not only plowed ahead, they lied to the world and to the American People. Bush looked us in the eye with his weasel eyes and lied through his smirk not about anything as trivial as sex, but about matters of life and death, lives and sacred honor. They completely ignored information and just plain invented information that never did exist.

• The Bush administration planned only for the first phase of the Iraq operation - the war, but not the peace.
Bush the insignificant never planned for the peace because he could not be a "war president" for four years let alone eight years if there ever was real peace. Bush claimed he "had hit the trifecta" with 9-11 and the wars he initiated.

• There is a very troubling lack of commitment to civil liberties on the part of this administration. The hope is that Congress, away from the hurry-up post-9/11 time, understands that we must pull back.
Let us not just hope that Congress will "pull back", let us hope that Kerry gets elected and saves the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution from further decay through Bush's cynical expoitation of broad floating fear.

In his second term, Bush must come into his own and be the compassionate conservative who campaigned four years ago.
Bush's kind of conservatism can never be "compassionate". Putting the two wods together in Bush's case makes the phrase an oxymoron. Bush is in his own right now as much as he ever will be. He and his handlers have all the ethics and compassion of prairie rattlesnakes.

He can do that. He has a good role model in his father.
Oh my yes. His father with his "Read my Lips, No new taxes" is an excellent role model.
His pardoning of the Reagan felons involved with "arms for hostages" is another fine example as a role model. In any case, the "role model" idea of the presidency was convenient crapola useful only when it could be used to attack Clinton. The president as a role model was pretty silly. I doubt any American mother ever told her child or even though of telling her child that any president or any other political figure should be a role model.
But business as usual must end. President Bush must:
Good grief another gross understatement. The Bush administration is the epitomy of the
bidness administration and President. What follows are more reasons the ARGUS should have endorsed Kerry. This editorial is just plain strange in this regard.

• Develop a realistic strategy for bringing peace to Iraq and our soldiers home. If that means more troops in the short-term, that's what we must do.
Hmm.. I thought Bush's vision was a reaons for supporting him not the lack of it.

• Address the economy, the rising poverty rate, the high cost of health care and myriad other domestic issues.
"Myriad" does indeed cover a multitude of other sins against the general welfare of our country. Bush's tax cuts for the rich have been a prime contributor to a more unfavorable distribution of wealth in the US making more very, very rich and many more poor in the process. His budget deficits and increasing US debt are not something to be glossed over with a cover phrase like myriad other....

• Be the leader in ending the bitter partisanship in Congress and the nation, and work to heal the divisions in our country. There is plenty of blame to go around for both major parties. But the president has to be the person to reach out.
Why the blame for Bush intentional divisive policies and practices and his attempt to alienate whole blocks of voters from the political process should be blame that extends to both parties is beyond me. It was not the Democrats who did as Newt Gingrish did by putting together a list of derogatory words and phrases to be always applied to Democrats and liberals by all GOP candidates. Bush is a master in the use of pejorative terms and phrases. He has nothing positive behind him. He has to be divisive to stay in power.

President Bush is capable of all this, if he rejects the arrogance and partisanship of others in his administration. He did that in the dark days after Sept. 11, 2001, and his second term is the perfect time to do it again.
This is more pure unadulterated crap. Bush has to be one of the most arrogant, partisan presidents in the history of the US. His despicable and deceptive partisan practices cannot be blamed on mysterious others in his administration. He may not have been capable of making a sensible decision on any serious matter with without injecting partisanship into the equation. After all he doesn't do "nuance". He does political bayonet
work without any further injections of arrogance and partisanship by his behind the scenes operatives and committees. The Bush administration attempted to exploit 9-ll as a partisan political issue within minutes or hours of hit happening and the campaign has continued nonstop since.
.
Four years ago, the Argus Leader endorsed Al Gore over President Bush.
No doubt with very good reasons. It should not have been much of a brain strain even on an editorial committee to do that. My guess is all the same reasons probably still apply in a contest between Bush and Kerry.

We're facing a different world situation now, with different needs.
Another assumption derived from Rove propaganda having little to do with reality. The world situation was not significantly different before or after 9-11. The Bush administration finally stopped ignoring the reports and data provided to them by the Clinton administration. And then started using the myth that the world beyond New York City had fundamentally changed.

In 2004, given the choices, George Bush is the right person to lead our nation.
I have not read anything in the previous parts of this editorial that would lead in any way to the above conclusion. Far from it. The catastrophic failures of the Bush administration in world diplomatic relations and with domestic economy and society should rule him completely out of the "choices" given.

This ARGUS editorial is one of the strangest "endorsements" I have ever read.

Bush lied. Bush Lies. You know it. You know what to do on election day....no matter what the Argus Editorial indicates. --- Doug Wiken

Comments

[James A. Johnson]

This is Jim Johnson and I approve of this message!

[Michael Groetken]

Right on!

[Glen]

Plus all the things that were not mentioned. One could start with the treatment of vets:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1401/

is a good start. Most vets don't complain, it is the moral equivalent of not applying for food stamps because you don't want others to know how poorly you are paid.

[concerned]

you really need to check into an anger management program...

[Hobbyist]

try to find out on these sites http://www.hobbyprojects.com

http://www.sciencelobby.com