Opinion Section L.A. Daily News (Readers Respond to Kerry Endorsement)

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - The Daily News staff offers a litany of reasons for its support for John Kerry's run for the presidency. The "botched invasion" of Iraq was prominent among these reasons. The Daily News is wrong. Problems, botched operations and a long recovery and rebuilding period were all part of World Wars I and II. Chaos, tactical errors, and unforeseen difficulties have plagued the winners of major wars throughout history. We will prevail in Iraq, and history will expose the Daily News staff and other Chicken Littles of the world as lacking in fortitude and vision. As for the hand-wringing over the "alliance of nations that should be united against terror," the Daily News is again wrong. We are capable of protecting our interests without the help of the cowardly, crooked thugs in France, Russia and Germany, who abandoned their duty to humanity as they lined their pockets with "oil for food" money.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): I was disappointed in your endorsement of Kerry, but more disappointed in your reasoning. I think your only positive statement about Kerry was that he would do it "smarter," with hopes he can live up to that "promise." I am torn over my vote for Bush, in spite of my disappointments, for many of the reasons you stated, but not so much so to give my vote to one whose only attribute is his intention to do everything better or smarter, and by and large nothing different. Moreover, Kerry's life history is not to do it smarter or better, but in fact different. My surprise is your trust of words and your disregard for Kerry's life history of public service.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): In your endorsement of Kerry for president, you stated Kerry had promised to take a similar approach to terror as Bush. Then you revealed your doubts as to whether or not Kerry can fulfill his promises. Your "fair" doubts reflect the same doubts that many Americans have when questioning Kerry's ability to protect the United States. We are talking about the risks, the safety and the future of our country. Do you trust a man who is telling you anything he can just to be elected? Or one that, although not perfect, is already doing the job? You may not like Bush's performance on economy, spending or how he speaks and looks, but what good are these things anyway when freedom as we know it is no more?

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): There you go again, just when I thought you were a newspaper with independent thought, you fall right into line with the other unfair and unbalanced print media moguls. Right in lockstep you go down that left-wing road. You wonder why George W. Bush doesn't spend any time in California _ it's because of newspapers like yours. I wouldn't waste a minute here, either. I would have respected you more if you had stayed neutral.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): I was shocked to see on your Web site that you have endorsed Kerry for president. He has been a do-nothing back-bencher in the Senate for 20 years, is merely second fiddle to Ted Kennedy in his state, has no executive experience, and is full of empty promises tailored to each interest group to whom he speaks _ and you would trust him in the Oval Office? I am very, very disappointed in y'all's judgment. I hope that your choice loses on Nov. 2 by an unarguably big margin and number of electoral votes.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): Your recommendation of Kerry for president is mind-boggling, based as it is on the assertion Bush has been "divisive," and has made "too many enemies at home and abroad to remain effective." The divisiveness at home exists because the Democrats have never accepted that Bush was legitimately elected president of the United States. The "enemies ... abroad" can only mean France, Germany, China and Russia. These nations withheld support to protect their economic interests, and it is extremely naive to assume otherwise. So your recommendation boils down to the fact the Democrats and Kerry have been frothing at the mouth with an irrational hatred for Bush for years and the French, Germans, Chinese and Russians take bribes.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): The Daily News supports Kerry in the hopes of uniting the country, yet a close election is guaranteed to leave the country divided once again regardless of who wins. The philosophical split that you wring your hands over began when the liberal Democrats defeated Judge Robert Bork's nomination for the United States Supreme Court in 1987. The split widened as the liberals attempted to defeat Clarence Thomas for a position on the Supreme Court in 1991 and continues today with the Democrats' refusal to approve a number of qualified candidates for federal judicial appointments. The main reason why President Bush must be elected over John Kerry is that during the next four years it is anticipated that there may be as many as four vacancies on the Supreme Court. If Kerry is elected, these vacancies will be filled with activist judges having liberal agendas who will make law instead of interpret the Constitution.

We have enjoyed reading the Daily News for many years. I can hardly express my disappointment on discovering this morning that you have shown, it seems to us, such a monumental lack of judgment in endorsing John Kerry for president. There are no leadership abilities we may admire. There is no strength of character to recommend confidence. We believe the fate of this great nation hangs in the balance, depending on the choice made this November. My husband (a Vietnam-era veteran) and I feel certain you have made the wrong choice.

In the 1960s, I was a paperboy delivering the Valley News and Green Sheet. It was the land of "Leave it to Beaver" and "The Brady Bunch." It was the safest place to raise a family as the schools and police were top notch. The area has transformed from that to "Escape from L.A." in a 40-year period. Now the Daily News has endorsed Kerry for president, a man that said he will offer amnesty to all illegal aliens within 100 days of obtaining office. If the readership is confused by the editorial staff's endorsement of mass illegal immigration, you need look no farther than your own front door. Just look, who now is delivering your newspaper?

Your editorial in favor of John Kerry is extremely weak. Eighteen or so paragraphs are spent detailing George Bush's shortcomings, and only two or three paragraphs explaining Kerry's virtues, the majority of which seems to be that he promises to be a smarter president. Then, as you point out yourself, "a lackluster 20-year career in the Senate raise some fair doubts," as to whether he can keep his promise. Lastly, your use of an Abraham Lincoln quote is truly ironic. Given Lincoln's mistakes and hardships during his first four years, actually propelling this country into the bloodiest civil war in our history, one can only assume you would have supported his challenger in 1864.

Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24): Thank you for your thoughtful editorial of Oct. 24. One thing should be pointed out, however: You cite that "Abraham Lincoln once famously warned" that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln, himself, was quoting Christ, as reported in the New Testament: in Matthew 12:25 and also in Mark 3:25.

Here is their weak endorsement mentioned(copied from yesterday's posting):

Kerry for president

It's time to reunite America

With the presidential election just nine days away and polls showing a dead heat, the country appears as divided as it was four years ago, when George W. Bush eked out a victory over then-Vice President Al Gore.

And that's no place to be.

With the nation at war against terrorist radicals, there has never been a greater need for unity. We found that unity after the terrible 9-11 attacks, but under President Bush's leadership we have become dangerously polarized.

To wage an effective war on terrorism, we must restore national unity and repair our damaged international alliances.

And the candidate best able to do that is Sen. John Kerry.

In fairness, there is much to admire about Bush's four years in office. In the aftermath of 9-11, he applied a steadying hand that helped unite the nation and focus Americans on the enormity of the task we faced. He crafted a sound vision for what it will take to wage the war, and he has shown the resolve necessary to win it.

But for all the leadership Bush showed in those first days, the record has been far more troubling ever since.

In Iraq, he staked the American-led invasion on weapons of mass destruction that never materialized. And while years of faulty evidence from various sources weren't his fault, his response to this clearly documented failure certainly is. Other than the belated resignation of CIA Director George Tenet, no one in the administration was publicly held accountable for this enormous error.

Lack of accountability is, sadly, a recurring theme in this administration.

Administration officials who failed to spot obvious warning signs before 9-11 were never reprimanded, let alone fired.

No one in the Pentagon - specifically Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - has ever had to answer for the botched invasion and occupation of Iraq, with its insufficient forces and the ensuing insurgency. Instead, the administration to this day pretends as though nothing is wrong.

After hastily rushing the country into war, the administration has made little effort to patch up relationships with America's scorned allies, allies whose support will prove crucial in waging the long-term war. That lack of alliances has forced America to bear an unacceptable share of the burden - both in terms of lives lost and dollars spent - to liberate and rebuild Iraq.

Domestically, the administration's record has been just as uneven.

No, Bush can't be blamed for a recession that began before he took office, and there's no denying the tremendous economic toll 9-11 inflicted on the nation. But responsibility for the massive federal budget deficit and spiraling national debt falls squarely on his shoulders.

It was Bush who ushered in a massive tax cut while never even attempting to offer offsetting spending decreases. And, in four years, the president has not once used his veto pen to demand fiscal responsibility from his fellow Republicans who control Congress.

Yet, should Kerry win the White House and Republicans retain both houses of Congress, there's reason to believe that the system of checks and balances that the nation's founders envisioned could be restored. With both sides keeping an eye on each other's excesses, there's a better chance that fiscal responsibility will return to Washington, as it did when Democrat Bill Clinton had to govern with a Republican Congress in the 1990s. As president, Kerry would be wise to follow Clinton's example in seeking a moderate approach to the economy and other domestic issues, such as health care.

But the overriding issue is how America will respond to the overwhelming threat its enemies pose.

Kerry has promised to take a similar approach to terror as Bush, seeking out terrorists wherever they are and refusing to let foreign powers wield a veto over American policy. But he also promises to do it ``smarter.''

Whether he can live up to those promises remains to be seen, and his own contradictory comments about the war and a lackluster 20-year career in the Senate raise some fair doubts. But what remains beyond doubt is that Bush, through a combination of blundering and arrogance, has made too many enemies at home and abroad to remain effective.

A house divided against itself, Abraham Lincoln once famously warned, cannot stand. Under Bush, America has grown increasingly divided. And the alliance of nations that should be united against terror has likewise grown divided. New leadership is our best bet for bringing the country back together and forging the unity that we cannot win the war without.

Kerry offers us the chance for a new beginning, and throughout the past year's grueling campaign, he has demonstrated the toughness necessary to lead the country in a time of war.

John Kerry offers the change that America needs for the next four years. But more importantly, at a time when the nation and the world need it most, he offers hope.

Gosh, funny you are here; I was thinking of YOU when I read this letter:

We will prevail Re "Kerry for president" (Editorial, Oct. 24):

Axel Anderson Santa Clarita

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.