The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Bush for re-election:
This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.
One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11–but with far deadlier weapons–could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.
This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.
A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party’s nomination: “Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: “The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. … We cannot let our enemies strike first.”
Bush’s sense of a president’s duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry’s, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.
[…]
For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused–effectively–on this nation’s security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation’s history as were the four years of World War II.
That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.
The whole thing is well worth reading. The Trib, I think, has got it about right. Actually, I think they’re being kind. These are both deeply flawed candidates.
Waddaya know, the Chicago Tribune is a one issue voter!
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! While you’re here I hope you’ll take a look around.
UPDATE: Joe Gandelman the excellent editor-in-chief of The Moderate Voice has an interesting post on Dean’s World which he gives some very reasonable, moderate (what else?) commentary and links to the running tally from Editor & Publisher.
UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis has a really nice observation:
What’s striking is how both editorials are really about Bush: The Times is against Bush far more than it is for Kerry. In fact, the Tribune has more good things to say about Kerry, whom ie does not endorse, than The Times does.
Sir,
You forgot to mention that NYT endorsed JFK.
My prediction (since Fall 2002) has been:
– JFK wins the nomination. (He did.)
– JFK defeats Bush by 5% (His 49 to Bush’s 44).
I am not a JFK fan. I loathe him. But, GOP is lazy, and the press wants JFK. What can I do?
AKB
You’re absolutely right. But I don’t live in New York—I live in Chicago and The Chicago Tribune is my hometown newspaper and, therefore, interesting to me. I’m sure Jeff Jarvis and other New York-area bloggers will cover the NYT’s endorsement more than adequately.
In addition the New York Times’s endorsement is distinctly a dog-bites-man story. Is there anyone in the country who’s surprised by it? I’m not, are you? But the Trib endorsing Bush is definitely a man-bites-dog story—it’s news all by itself. Although the Trib was once a right-leaning newspaper that hasn’t been so true lately. This is an interesting development.
In his post linking to this, Glenn Reynolds says, “I must say I’m surprised by” the Chicago Tribune’s endorsement of Bush.
Not sure why he’s surprised. The Chicago Tribune is a longtime conservative paper. Its presidential endorsements over the past two decades:
1984: Reagan
1988: Bush
1992: Bush
1996: Dole
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
There’s nothing at all suprising about today’s endorsement, unless you’re someone who constantly decries the “liberal” media without actually knowing much about the media.
good to see the trib has not gone over to the dark side along with most of the rest of the msm.
on a side note, i totally agree with this article: With oil prices hovering at $55 per barrel, dependence on foreign oil growing, our energy system more vulnerable than ever to terrorism, and demand for oil in China skyrocketing, one is left puzzled by how little attention is devoted to America’s growing energy problem in the 2004 presidential election campaign. Not one question in the three recent presidential debates was dedicated to the topic.
ninja, I agree with you completely and I’ve written about my misgivings as far back as March. And I noted the absence of questions about China here.
From the editorial: There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned.
If you needed more proof, the article “Without a Doubt” makes it quite clear that Bush won’t learn from his mistakes.
You might also look into Bush’s guest worker plan. Nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, and others would be included in that program, not just farm workers. In practice, millions of people around the world would be able to bid down American jobs to near the minimum wage.
I’ve taken both candidates to task for their lack of a credible immigration policy. And it’s clear that the “jobs no Americans will do” trope is a canard. There are few jobs that Americans would do if you lower the wages enough.
Let me suggest reading “Post-war planning non-existent”. I would consider starting a war partially under false pretenses, partially lying to the American people, and then going to war without a plan to win the peace pretty much of a disqualifier to holding future office.
Nevertheless some will not.
So, ask yourself, “will Bush do it differently next time?” Given the same or almost all of the same people, what would happen differently the next war or the next major policy?
My God, you must be owned by some very, very big
corporations!