Sunday, October 17, 2004

Are You Sitting Down?

Here’s a shocker: The New York Times has endorsed Senator John Kerry for President. Now, take a few seconds to recover from that astonishing statement, then read on.

The opening sentence in the endorsement acknowledges that “Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy,” and spends the rest of the editorial trying to make a good case for Kerry as an acceptable replacement for George W. Bush.

The Times says of Mr. Kerry that “[h]e is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change.” Which means, of course, that he will continue to change positions with the wind, a trait that liberals value above all others. Someone who does not change positions is simply not civilized enough to hold the presidency. The Times seems not to allow for the fact that national policy must be made based upon what is best for the U.S., and not change because someone in the world either doesn’t like the policy. The Times goes on to say that Mr. Kerry’s “entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices.” What they really means is that Mr. Kerry has never held a real job. He has been either a government employee or an elected official all his adult life.

The Times still wallows in sour grapes, alluding to the peculiarities of the 2000 election, claiming that President Bush is not a legitimate President with this statement: “Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center.” The translation of that is that Mr. Bush should essentially have governed the nation as if he were Al Gore, leaving behind his own vision for how to move the country forward. Had he done so, presumably Mr. Bush would be universally loved, and his reelection would have been a sure thing, to the point that the Democrats would not have nominated a challenger.

The Times goes on to say that “[h]e sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another,” no doubt disrupting the peaceful rest of George Orwell, who predicted the twisting of the meaning of language for political purposes. Mr. Bush has been adamant about nominating judges who will interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench on passions of the moment, as the Times prefers.

Unable to pass up the opportunity to dive into the gutter of class warfare, The Times charge that Mr. Bush preferred to give his rich constituents a tax break instead of investing their money in creating jobs. Such a position contradicts the reality that keeping money in the hands of taxpayers, especially rich ones, is precisely the best way to create jobs.

And finally, there is this: “The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances.” The recession begun in the last six months of the Clinton administration, the accompanying job loss trend that was heightened by the bursting dot-com bubble and the murderous 9/11 attacks was one of the shortest in our history. Mr. Bush’s tax policy was a prime reason for that. But The Times believes that someone like John Kerry, who “is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change,” would be preferable to George Bush.


Rebecca DeVendra said...

Why am I not suprised? The Times always endorse Democrats. Kerry just has no idea how things work in the real world. Bush has acually had a JOB and knows what will help people out, like Tax Cuts. It's scary, thinking about what Kerry will do if he gets in.

James Shott said...

It's scary to think what Kerry will do if he gets the job, but it's equally scary to imagine what he WON'T do if he wins.

Huston said...

It is hard to imagine how poor the Democratic nominee would have to be for the New York Times to endorse a Republican. Actually, the only way the New York Times would endorse a Republican is if he were Republican in name only, advocating positions as liberal as John Kerry.