Kerry's endorsement landslide

John Kerry's newspaper endorsement lead widens: 45-30. This probably says more about Bush's singularly awful performance as President than it does about Kerry's greatness. In fact, most of the endorsments I read today seem to do more kicking around of Bush than praising of Kerry (the Bush-endorsing minority even grumbles about Bush's mistakes in their curiously guarded editorials, with the notoriously conservative Tampa Tribune refusing to endorse either candidate). Here's some excerpts.

Star Tribune: John Kerry, the Right Choice for President:

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.

New York Times: John Kerry for President:

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

San Francisco Chronicle: Why Kerry is the Choice:

This nation is not only polarized, it is caught in a disturbing cycle of political assault and payback. We need a leader who can reach across that divide to form common alliances on difficult issues that matter, such as addressing the health-care crisis or reforming Social Security and Medicare entitlements to avoid the coming collision when Baby Boomers retire -- an issue that has received scant attention in this campaign. Bush, with his good-versus-evil certitude on everything from foreign policy to same-sex marriage, has failed that test of leadership for these troubled times.

Akron Beacon Journal (apparently a conservative paper):

The centerpiece of the Bush term has been the war in Iraq, and in this instance, too, the president has grievously erred, casting aside the advice of generals (not to mention prescient experts in the State Department), hyping incomplete intelligence, planning miserably for the postwar occupation and the rebuilding of the country. The White House could hardly have been more out of touch, believing that a coterie of Iraqi exiles would be cheered as leaders of a fractured land. The troubles point to a pattern of disdain for the value of information, scientific or otherwise, whether the subject is global warming or the global war against terrorism.

The president talks about ``hard work.'' He has made the task immensely more difficult (in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) with his long string of blunders. If George W. Bush has been resolute, that alone isn't the test for assessing his re-election. He must be held accountable for the consequences of his decisions. By that measure, he lacks a record worthy of a second term.