| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2004 07:19:27 PM · #1 |
Bush's Hometown Newspaper Endorses Kerry
In an incredibly scathing review of Mr. Bush's presidential tenure, The Lone Star Iconoclast, Mr. Bush's hometown newspaper endorsed Mr. Kerry for president. The newspaper notes that in 2000 it endorsed Mr. Bush, and that it supported his Iraq war. Nonetheless, after examining the record, it endorses Mr. Kerry for his vision of a return to normalcy which our country so desperately needs.
Here are some excerpts from the paper's editorial endorsement:
"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."
[...]
"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."
[...]
"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 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."
[...]
"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'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."
[...]
"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."
-------------------------------------------------
//news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:41:51 PM · #2 |
| Good thing Mr. Bush doesn’t read the paper. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:46:39 PM · #3 |
I don't know if I'd call that a newspaper.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 07:59:09 PM · #4 |
Here's an even handed look at Mr. Bush's hometown and its single newspaper, the Iconoclast:
"The Iconoclast comes out weekly and its penetration of its market is basically 100 percent; its circulation is roughly 1,000, a little more than the total population of Crawford itself. (If the New York Times could say the same, it would be selling 28 million papers a day.)"
[...]
"Crawford itself, like the rest of Texas (with the possible exception of Austin), is often portrayed as an overwhelmingly Republican stronghold, but Smith's paper comes closer to reflecting the reality: Even at the center of the Bush universe, political dialogue thrives, unencumbered by the convenient pronouncements of political consultants and journalists who prefer a shorthand that reduces most Americans to red vs. blue caricatures.
Crawford has its share of people "who are phenomenally behind whatever the president does, of course," says Smith. While he acknowledges that he gets letters that "tell us that we're publishing drivel" if the Iconoclast diverges from the Republican party line, Smith says the letters the paper receives split down the middle ideologically. A self-proclaimed "conservative Democrat," as well as the mayor of nearby Clifton, he argues that "while the population of the state is largely Republican, most people don't really feel it in their soul."
[...]
For its part, the Iconoclast endorsed Bush when he ran for president, and when he decided to enter Iraq, but now the paper has begun expressing misgivings in its pages. "We just try to play it as we see it," shrugs Smith. Smith knows too much, and his readers know too much, for him to portray all residents of Crawford as hometown boosters who just happen to identify with the president ideologically.
-------------------------------------------------
//www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000410.asp
Message edited by author 2004-09-28 20:06:37.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 08:11:36 PM · #5 |
Wow, amazing. Well I guess I'll just have to vote for Kerry now.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 08:17:47 PM · #6 |
| So his hometown has a weekly rag that pushes a liberal agenda. Big deal! What is this supposed to prove? |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 08:33:34 PM · #7 |
Doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the editor doesn't like him. Who cares.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:04:41 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:07:21 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
 |
Yep, that about sums it up.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:19:11 PM · #10 |
The town has a poulation of about 700. Newspaper circulation is probably about half that.
Plus, Texas will vote Bush. I dont see how this is news. |
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:25:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
The town has a poulation of about 700. Newspaper circulation is probably about half that.
Plus, Texas will vote Bush. I dont see how this is news. |
Looks like you missed this on a previous post:
"The Iconoclast comes out weekly and its penetration of its market is basically 100 percent; its circulation is roughly 1,000, a little more than the total population of Crawford itself. (If the New York Times could say the same, it would be selling 28 million papers a day.)"
|
|
|
|
09/28/2004 09:35:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
(If the New York Times could say the same, it would be selling 28 million papers a day.)" |
your keyword here... "IF"... and since they don't, (probably because they are widely known as one of the most biased news(opinion-paper not news)papers around... you should not even waste time suggesting something that ridiculous...
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 12:00:56 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by bdobe:
(If the New York Times could say the same, it would be selling 28 million papers a day.)" |
your keyword here... "IF"... and since they don't, (probably because they are widely known as one of the most biased news(opinion-paper not news)papers around... you should not even waste time suggesting something that ridiculous... |
By god, it's no wonder the "camps" don't see eye to eye. I didn't write that. The sentence and parenthesis are a direct quote from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review. The sentence that you attribute to me was in quotes, hence I didn't claim authorship; moreover, in a previous post I provided a direct link to the article where the sentence originally appears.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 12:24:05 PM · #14 |
So the Lone Star Iconoclast endorses Kerry. How amazing is that.
It should be noted that the newspaper is owned by W. Leon Smith, a self-proclaimed "conservative Democrat," as well as the ( democratic ) mayor of nearby Clifton, TX. He argues that "while the population of the state is largely Republican, most people don't really feel it in their soul."
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 12:41:34 PM · #15 |
I find it interesting that opposers are attacking the source and not the subject of the article. I guess we must all agree on the latter.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 01:05:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
I find it interesting that opposers are attacking the source and not the subject of the article. I guess we must all agree on the latter. |
The latter (the subject) is entirely opinion (as all editorial endorsements are), and therefore the point of view of the former (the subject) is relevant, in fact key, in evaluating the latter. Just check the responses of dbode, olyuzi and madmordegan when anyone posts any news, analysis or opinion with even the most tenuous links to Fox, Drudge, ...
So I suppose that, yes, we all agree that the latter is the opinion of the former. We just don't agree that it's significant, meaningful or relevent. As the common refrain from my fellow conservatives seems to be: So....?
Message edited by author 2004-09-29 13:06:13. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 01:47:42 PM · #17 |
The point of the Iconoclast's endorsement is that its editorial page has changed its mind about Mr. Bush, after inspecting the record. In 2000 the paper endorsed Mr. Bush; moreover, the paper also supported the invasion of Iraq because of the threat Mr. Bush said that country represented; finally, the paper concludes, Mr. Bush let us down, none of what he claimed has turned out to be right and, therefore, the paper has arrived at the only logical conclusion: Mr. Bush must be replaced and let someone else come in to fix the mess that the Bush administration created.
But it's not just the Iconoclast that is revising its position on Mr. Bush and Iraq. Even that bedrock of neo-conservatism, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is reconsidering Mr. Bush's military unilateralism. In an article entitled "The End of the Unipolar Myth," a fellow at the AEI writes:
"With American casualties in Iraq passing 1,000, and regions of the country descending into more destructive violence, the limits of U.S. military power are on display. The Bush administration's scramble to strike repeated compromises in Iraq, and its failure to achieve stability there, raise fundamental questions about the limits of American power."
[...]
"As Zbigniew Brzezinski put it recently, "Preponderance should not be confused with omnipotence." It has been obvious since the later stages of the Vietnam War that overwhelming firepower is not enough for victory. Though the American death toll was significantly lower than the Vietnamese (58,000 versus 3 million), the superpower was unable to avoid defeat; media coverage of the devastating happenings eventually undermined credibility both at home and abroad.
The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath, however, highlight the basic unipolarist misconception that sophisticated military and economic power are sufficient to subdue any adversary.
The United States possesses by far the largest pile of sophisticated weaponry on earth, yet its conventional military power is severely stretched in fighting one and a quarter wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
[...]
"The "war on terrorism," for its part, is far more complex than a massive deployment of men and munitions against a clearly perceived enemy-state or coalition of states. In this war, terrorism is not the enemy; it is a battle tactic used by an elusive, globally dispersed, well-funded enemy. Building a worldwide coalition of allies to fight such an enemy is not a policy choice. It is the only option in a war without conventional battlefields. The formidable superiority of U.S. economic power is also under threat. The rapidly ballooning expense of the Iraq war is increasing budget deficits that were already huge. This is also intensifying a gathering U.S. fiscal crisis of growing debt, now financed by foreign capital.
Thanks to persistently large current account deficits, the United States last year borrowed from abroad at an unprecedented rate of $4 billion a day Asian, European and Middle Eastern lenders are buying what they see as dollar assets."
[...]
"The United States today, even with its travails in Iraq, remains much more than the world's dominant power. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once asserted, America is still the world's "indispensable power." It can create avoidable crises by plunging into poorly planned wars of choice, as in Iraq; or it can intervene as a coalition head to create relatively benign outcomes, as in the first Gulf war. But it would be hard to resolve a major world crisis without the active help of the United States. In other words, America continues to occupy the world's leadership position. But it's a board chairman's job, requiring persuasion, the creation of consensus and discreet flexing of power, as well as popular acceptance. Its tasks cannot be performed by a lone maverick. If the United States wants to reassert itself as a widely accepted, and respected, leader of the democratic world, it will have to carry the world with it. Its efforts will fail if it continues to believe it can wield unilateral power indefinitely in a unipolar world."
---------------------------------------
//www.aei.org/news/filter.all,newsID.21288/news_detail.asp
---------------------------------------
For more on the American Enterprise Institute see here.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 01:51:58 PM · #18 |
What is relevant is that the president’s hometown used to support him but does not anymore and they say why. Wouldn’t you think the hometown newspaper of the pres would love to be able to back him with all their heart? Of course they would, they did in 2000.
That is all that is relevant. If his own hometown paper wont support him; I think it says a lot. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 01:53:16 PM · #19 |
Sounds to me like AEI and the Lone Star Ironoclast are Flip-Floppers!!!
;)
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 01:56:00 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by Riggs:
The town has a poulation of about 700. Newspaper circulation is probably about half that.
Plus, Texas will vote Bush. I dont see how this is news. |
Looks like you missed this on a previous post:
"The Iconoclast comes out weekly and its penetration of its market is basically 100 percent; its circulation is roughly 1,000, a little more than the total population of Crawford itself. (If the New York Times could say the same, it would be selling 28 million papers a day.)" |
How much do they charge for a subscription to the Iconoclast? I couldn't find any subscriber info on their site. Is it a free publication?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 02:11:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
What is relevant is that the president’s hometown used to support him but does not anymore and they say why. Wouldn’t you think the hometown newspaper of the pres would love to be able to back him with all their heart? Of course they would, they did in 2000.
That is all that is relevant. If his own hometown paper wont support him; I think it says a lot. |
If you actually BELIEVE that, then I guess it's best that Bush won the election in 2000. Bush outpolled Gore by 51% vs. 47% in Gore's home state in 2000. You would think that his home state would have loved to be able to back him with all their heart. If his own home state wouldn't support him; I think it says a lot. |
|
|
|
09/29/2004 02:12:56 PM · #22 |
I'm from NC.
I don't support John Edwards.
Same thing?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 02:25:00 PM · #23 |
Here's the real meat of this thread:
The point of the Iconoclast's endorsement is that its editorial page has changed its mind about Mr. Bush, after inspecting the record. In 2000 the paper endorsed Mr. Bush; moreover, the paper also supported the invasion of Iraq because of the threat Mr. Bush said that country represented; finally, the paper concludes, Mr. Bush let us down, none of what he claimed has turned out to be right and, therefore, the paper has arrived at the only logical conclusion: Mr. Bush must be replaced and let someone else come in to fix the mess that the Bush administration created.
But it's not just the Iconoclast that is revising its position on Mr. Bush and Iraq. Even that bedrock of neo-conservatism, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is reconsidering Mr. Bush's military unilateralism. In an article entitled "The End of the Unipolar Myth," a fellow at the AEI writes:
[...]
See above for the rest.
---------------------------------------
PS. Please don't delete this post as was done with the previous one. I'm trying to bring back the conversation to the relevant point. Thank you.
Message edited by author 2004-09-29 14:38:44.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 02:57:49 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I'm from NC.
I don't support John Edwards.
Same thing? |
hooray! at least someone realizes what Edwards is...
An ambulance chasing low down sneaky snake of a shark personal injury trial attorney, with no business at all being Vice President... remember if something ever happened to Kerry, Edwards becomes President... that's even scarier than having Kerry in Office...
|
|
|
|
09/29/2004 03:10:31 PM · #25 |
You can argue from today till tomorrow about the significance of this, but here's what's unbelieveable about the Bush administrations' war on terror:
FBI Has 120,000 Hours of Al Qaeda Tapes Still Not Translated
"A newly released report from the Justice Department has revealed the FBI has yet to translate more than 120,000 hours of recordings that could contain valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda. The report confirms criticisms by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds who was fired from her post in part because she criticized the agency's translation department. The Justice Department has not yet released its full investigation into the matter but yesterday released a declassified summary. For the past three years the Bush administration has claimed that improving the government's translation capability was a top priority. On Sept. 10, 2001 the National Security Agency intercepted messages saying, "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin." But the messages were not translated until after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon."
and
CIA Warned Bush Before War About Post-War Dangers
"The New York Times is reporting that the CIA's National Intelligence Council warned President Bush in two classified reports in January 2003 that an invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict. The existence of these two classified reports had not been previously disclosed and offer new proof that the President was warned before the invasion that the Iraq invasion could lead to destabilize the region. The report was written by the same group that wrote the recent classified National Intelligence Estimate that predicted Iraq could face a civil war if the security situation doesn‚t improve. Bush recently dismissed the CIA report describing the conclusions of the reports as "guesses" by the CIA on the situation."
Both sources from
Democracy Now. org
Sorry to change the subject, but more and more information comes out about how poorly the Bush administration is really running this war on terror, and how they ignored reports about the consequences about invading Iraq and about how they ignored the fact that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, WMDs and was not a threat to other countries at the time they were invaded.
Message edited by author 2004-09-29 15:21:31. |
|
