Crawford Tx. Newspaper endorses KERRY!!!

TL, ya gotta register to view the site. Would you mind copying and pasting the text?

 

Here is the URL for the actual editorial:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

I am cutting and pasting it in full here, just in case it disappears. Some newspapers have been known to update their sites and erase articles. Moderator, please forgive, but, in the spirit of "just in case," here is the full text...

American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.
President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.
The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.
Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.
Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.
Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.
Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.
Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.
Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.
What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.
Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.
Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.
Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.
Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.
The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.
We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.
Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

 

Well, I guess that's their choice. Most media outlets are liberal in stance, so it does not surprise me. And much of what they say is merely their opinion, not fact. They don't have but one sided facts on most of the information, I guarantee you.

AVL1984

 

The editorial is an accurate and truthful evaluation of George Bush. I doubt, however, that it will make a difference as most Bush supporters don't let the truth influence them. Besides Bush says he's "pro-life" and a "Christian". That makes everthing okay.

 

1)This would be no different than the ups and downs that we may experience in our
401(k)s. And, as things stand now, 401(k)s are going to be the main source of income in the years to come for anyone who is going to have a decent quality of life during retirement. I would welcome the chance to invest at least a portion of my Social Security taxes and to be fully responsible for the results.

2)This is not true. Social Security will go into deficit around 2017. The "trust funds" consist of IOUs from the U.S. Treasury - there is no money socked away. Starting about 2017 general revenue money will have to be used to pay Social Security recipients - which will mean taxes will have to go up significantly or else even more money will have to be borrowed or benefits will have to be cut significantly. Of course, we could start to solve the problem now so that nothing draconian will have to be done.

 

Please, prove how it is accurate. I see little accuracy in it. Mr. Bush didn't raise oil prices...OPEC was partially responsible for this as was the War in Iraq. Mr. Bush cannot be faulted for the intelligence failures. That started long before his watch under an appointee of the Clinton Administration, and continued until the CIA director finally resigned a few months back. Mr. Bush's plan to privatize the SS ponzi scheme set upon the American people by another famous democratic president, FDR, is a good one, as it will make the government more accountable for their portion and the PEOPLE more accountable to save and imput a portion of their pay back into mutual funds, etc.

And as far as President Bush being a Christian, I believe he is. As for him being anti-abortion, I believe to some degree he is. But, that's not my call. Only God knows his heart.

AVL1984

 

The worldwide demand for oil is simply amazing along with the fear factor built into the price for a variety of potential supply interruptions.

 

The federal government has not balanced its budget in decades. The alleged "surplus" was using the current yearly surplus in programs such as Social Security to mask the fact that the national debt continued to go up year after year after year...

 

Correct, Ken. There are many mitigating factors to the rise in prices.

AVL1984

 

Ken, when's the announcement?

 

AVL,

There is no doubt that he has made massive spending increases. Don't take my word for it...go to HIS website, he brags about record increases in all sorts of doemstic social programs. He's the guy who outliberaled the liberals, and he's PROUD OF IT!

 

The two parts of the article that I disagree with most are:

1) The endorsement of Kerry; he'll simply pick up where Bush left off where Clinton left off;

and

2) The statement: "Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:..." Obviously, millions of people who think they are "conservatives" love him and will vote for four more years of record liberalism.

 

Let me check my schedule...

I don't see one planned.

 

Great, thanks. I was getting worried.

 

That is not true. Go to:

www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

The national debt increased every year that Bill Clinton was in office. The only way a "balanced" budget was arrived at was by including the current yearly Social Security surplus to mask the true yearly overall deficit. But this surplus was spent at well and IOUs placed in the Social Security trust fund.

 

It's true that Clinton's balanced budget was trickery. It's also true that Bush has spent wildly, even in comparison with Clinton, and made things far worse.

If you want to see examples of his wild spending, go to his website, where he repeatedly brags about it.

The "big boys" are playing "good cop / bad cop" with us. How long will we play along?

 

AVL,

There is no doubt that he has made massive spending increases. Don't take my word for it...go to HIS website, he brags about record increases in all sorts of doemstic social programs. He's the guy who outliberaled the liberals, and he's PROUD OF IT! </font>[/QUOTE]Hey may have increased spending on some social programs. As far as the No Child Left Behind Act, there has been a marked improvement in our states childrens grades because of this. Though I don't agree with all parts of the NCLBA, I can say that in other states there has been improvement also. That was a necessary increase. Our schools were becoming worse by the year with kids passing and not being able to read, do basic math, and much more. The spending on the Medicare bill, I didn't particularly like. I myself am on SS disability and have medicare as my secondary insurance. I know, though, that many seniors and disabled I have talked to in the clinics and at the hospitals HAVE found some degree of benefit from this increase. The thing that they, and I myself found to be wrong on Mr. Bush' part is the increase by 17% in the premiums for such next year when our SS checks will only raise between one and three percent.

Mr. Bush does have his flaws, but he is sure better than John F (stands for FlipFlop) Kerry.

AVL1984