Tucson's *Arizona Daily Star* Endorses Kerry

[Fridays Child]

Elect Kerry

Four years ago, George W. Bush became president of a thriving America. Not only had his predecessor eliminated the national deficit, he had left the new president a $236 billion budget surplus. Unemployment was at a record low of 4 percent. The nation was not at war. The current president's policies have had a negative impact on each of these areas. We believe John Kerry can reverse that trend, and we endorse him for president.

In less than four years, President Bush, the avowed conservative, turned a record surplus into a record deficit, now estimated at $422 billion. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent and then improved a bit, but this summer, 5.4 percent of the work force was still unemployed.

The peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration evolved, under President Bush, to a falsely justified war and an economy that declined sharply and is barely staggering back to solvency - though even that faltering solvency is seriously jeopardized by impractical tax cuts for which our children will pay dearly.

Economist Milton Friedman has observed, with considerable wisdom, "A tax cut that adds to the deficit today is just a tax hike on future taxpayers."

More at http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/opinion/41363.php

[pmbryant]

1. Who did they endorse last time?

Very nice editorial.

I get the feeling they didn't endorse Bush last time around either, though they don't say.

:-)

Peter

[zaj]

2. "George W. Bush is not fit to govern this country. Al Gore is."

(I'm posting this in full because it is so well written and so dead on. Why couldn't everyone see this in 2000? Makes me proud to be from Tucson!)

http://www.azstarnet.com/vote2000/1029.shtml

Endorsement: Gore for president
US President
A key reason for endorsing Vice President Al Gore is that unlike Republican George W. Bush, he has not proclaimed swooning admiration for Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The next president likely will select three or perhaps four justices to the Supreme Court. If only two of those justices are Scalia-Thomas clones, a woman's right to control her body doubtless will be revoked with a reversal of the court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Scalia and Thomas aim to undo that decision along with affirmative action and various measures aimed at eliminating discrimination. Scalia and Thomas also seek to remove the barrier between church and state, weaken collective bargaining and eliminate or dilute federal power to regulate the environment.

The Supreme Court holds sway over every facet of American life. Bush's appointment of justices of Scalia's ilk would create a court with a radical right majority. It would intrude deeply into the everyday life of Americans, not only eroding protections we today take for granted, but also mandating morality.

Another major reason that we support Gore is the fact that he is qualified. He has spent his life in public service, as a congressman from Tennessee, a senator and eight years as vice president. The debates may have revealed an aggressive Al Gore, but they also showed a candidate who has mastered the issues.

Bush has been in public life barely six years. Even at that, he serves as governor of a state that provides limited power to its chief executive. Bush's knowledge of foreign affairs is obviously limited to what Stanford political scientist Condoleeza Rice tells him.

Voters and pundits have not, as Al Hunt of The Wall Street Journal has noted, held Bush and Gore to the same standard. Everyone, it appears, is happy to lower the bar for Bush. Even Bush recognizes this. Bush told David Letterman that all he had to do was show up and say he was George W. Bush, running for president, to win the debate.

The Bush campaign has showered Gore's misstatements as lies while their candidate makes "honest" mistakes.

It seems a mystery that an affable fellow with such limited experience such as Bush has become a presidential candidate. It is only a mystery until one sees that the Bush campaign has raised more money in this campaign than any other in the history of American politics. A great deal has come from corporate America. He has raised $180.8 million, about $98.5 million in individual contributions. That total is about $50 million more than Gore has raised.

Only Gore has dared speak of campaign finance reform as a necessary antidote to this corruption of American politics. Only he has pledged that the first order of business in a Gore administration would be to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, which provides for campaign finance reform. Bush has made no such commitment. Nor is he likely to do so.

Bush's Social Security proposal to allow younger workers to invest part of their Social Security contributions in markets is unworkable when considered alongside his tax cut. If his proposal becomes law, about $1 trillion will pour into financial markets, draining the Social Security fund. Bush has not explained how the system will be able to replace that $1 trillion. Combined with Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut financed by the alleged surplus, that makes a $2.6 trillion outlay, about half of which does not exist.

Gore offers tax cuts that unlike Bush's target working families. Bush's tax cut would heavily favor the wealthy. Gore would use most of the surplus to shore up Social Security and provide much needed investment in education and the environment.

In more than 25 years of service, Al Gore has been a dedicated public servant. In contrast, George W. Bush spent much of his time pursing money in the Permian Basin of West Texas. It was there that he lost a pile of money even though he attracted willing investors through his family's connections. He became a millionaire after purchasing a small share of the Major League Texas Rangers. He inflated the team's value by persuading a Texas municipality to subsidize construction of a stadium for the team - as bold an example of corporate welfare as you're likely to find.

George W. Bush is not fit to govern this country. Al Gore is.