Kerry gets another endorsement -- from the leading newspaper in the battleground state of Minnesota...
Editorial: John Kerry/The right choice for president
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
October 17, 2004
Political passions are burning white hot as Nov. 2 nears. Americans realize what is at stake: the United States' ability to lead in the world, protect its citizens at home, preserve its treasured liberties, and leave a legacy of hope and opportunity. George W. Bush's presidency has put all that at risk. Sen. John Kerry proposes a sharp course change.
The Star Tribune endorses John Kerry for president.
Long steeped in U.S. foreign policy, Kerry understands that safeguarding Americans and pursuing national interests require strong alliances and deft diplomacy -- that the exercise of military power by itself does little but breed resentment. He knows that an indispensable part of the United States' power to lead in the world derives from its status as a beacon of freedom, morality and justice. Kerry recognizes that to prevail in the struggle against terrorism, America must return to the moral high ground rather than unilaterally pursue a perverted, narrow vision of its national interest.
At home Kerry would roll back Bush's tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, now the chief cause of massive federal deficits, and work to shore up the middle class. He has presented a sound plan for affordable health care, while shunning GOP efforts to privatize pieces of Medicare and Social Security. He would reverse Bush's devious dismantling of environmental protections, and he would preserve the safety net that protects America's most vulnerable citizens.
Great presidential leadership harnesses keen policy insight, brilliant use of executive skills and the ability to inspire American citizens -- appealing to their highest aspirations and uniting them in pursuit of the nation's noblest values.
At the very least, the presidency requires stewardship: of America's people and the economy that sustains them, of the Constitution that guides and protects them, and of the United States' singular leadership in the world. President Bush has profoundly failed these requirements.
While seeking office in 2000, Bush defined himself as "a uniter, not a divider." He has proved to be the most divisive, insular and partisan president since Richard Nixon. He ran as a moderate, but has pursued radical goals that have plunged the nation into debt and injected the government into the most personal of family matters. He promised to conduct foreign policy humbly, yet he repeatedly spurned allies, culminating in his arrogant and misguided rush to war on Iraq.
Nothing in President Bush's performance has been more damaging to U.S. strength and security than his wholesale redefinition of America's relationship with other nations. Disdainful of policy nuances, Bush relied on a small group of advisers to craft a dangerous departure from consultative foreign policy. He spurned the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol and the Biological Weapons Convention. Relying almost solely on military muscle to do his will in the world, he projected an attitude that said: We'll do what we want; fall in line behind us or lump it. This dangerous unilateralism, apparent early in Bush's tenure, became crystal clear after the tragedy of 9/11.
Bush had planned from the earliest days of the administration to topple Saddam Hussein. Indeed, his preoccupation with Iraq and missile defense in early 2001 seems to have prevented him from recognizing the growing dangers of Al-Qaida -- despite the urgent warnings of his own counterterrorism expert. Though the Sept. 11 attacks brought an immediate outpouring of heartfelt sympathy and offers of help from abroad, Bush attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan on his own terms, virtually alone.
Soon the administration diverted U.S. attention and resources to the invasion of Iraq. The way Bush did it demonstrates another of the most important reasons to deny him a second term: his pattern of deception and secrecy. He sold the war on Iraq, a defanged nation, by repeatedly suggesting a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He argued that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction posed an urgent threat to U.S. security. The connections didn't exist, and neither did the weapons.
The decision for war came first; the way to justify it came second, and has changed often.
Bush has governed with mendacity and secrecy at home as well, undermining the democratic imperatives of accountability, transparency and openness. Just as his reasons for war in Iraq have shifted repeatedly, his rationale for tax cuts has changed to suit his convenience: In 2000, candidate Bush said his tax package was designed to return a big surplus to taxpayers; later, with the government running massive budget deficits, he said the very same tax cuts were designed to give the economy short-term stimulus and rebuild government revenues.
As recently as last week, Bush claimed that middle-class families are receiving the bulk of tax relief under his fiscal policies, even though a widely published nonpartisan analysis shows that two-thirds of the tax relief this year went to the top 20 percent of households.
Last year, as his landmark Medicare bill awaited a crucial vote in Congress, Bush said it would cost just $400 billion; lawmakers later learned that internal White House estimates had climbed to $534 billion and that the administration had threatened to fire a career government actuary if he disclosed the higher number.
And instead of waging an open assault on environmental protections, Bush hid plans to weaken air pollution laws and open more public lands to logging behind Orwellian names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."
The United States is paying for all this -- with a declining standard of living for the middle class, a massive debt left to future generations, and a weakened position abroad. A turnaround is essential.
John Kerry can effectively lead that turnaround. Kerry has a long, solid record of bipartisan cooperation and fiscal responsibility. He's been a leading proponent of the "pay-as-you-go" principle: To spend more on a program, you must identify how you'll pay for it without borrowing. His proposals are responsible and creative; for example, Kerry's health plan expands on our current system by offering incentives and more choices for patients.
Kerry knows how to effectively join with U.S. allies to leverage the vast power of international will. Contrary to Bush's portrait of him as a "flip-flopper" on Iraq, he says today what he said on Oct. 9, 2002, when he voted to give Bush authority to go to war: "In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made ... to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." Bush failed to do so, and Kerry has spoken out.
Kerry's approach demonstrates maturity, nuance and thoughtfulness. Those qualities don't always play well in campaign sound bites. But they will serve America exceedingly well in the Oval Office.
The United States deserves a Kerry victory on Nov. 2.
startribune.com |
