SwiftVets.com

[diane in IL]

I have great news to report. Peoria, IL's (liberal) newspaper, The Peoria Journal Star (PJStar.com) just published this morning a glowing endorsement for President Bush's re-election. DH and I were quite surprised. I have not been able to find a link but just e-mailed them and will publish a link as soon as I have it.

diane in IL

[MJB]

My home town!!! That is the most liberal paper, too. Cool.

Link - http://www.pjstar.com/
_________________
MJB
USAF '85-'92

[RogerRabbit]

There is nothing on their endorsement page http://www.pjstar.com/opinion/ENDORSEMENTS/
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[diane in IL]

I couldn't find it on-line either but it is a one quarter page endorsement plain as day in todays (Sunday) Journal Star.[url]

diane in IL[/url]

[Snipe]

Sheesh! Those PJ star rotters really don't want you to pass the
URL for the article around. I've tried 5 times to post it with zilch
results. So to do it the hard way:

http://www.pjstar.com

(OK, that doesn't seem to be a real "top-secret, burn before reading"
thing and oughtta work out all right"

When you get the page, click on "OPINION"

Next one to click on is "Today's Opinion Page"

and finally, "US President G. W. Bush"

That ought to get you there. Phew!

I'm still not renewing my subscription though.

Philip Grebner
BTC, USN (ret)
_________________
Tin Can Sailor

[RogerRabbit]

They like Mr Bush so much that they posted it twice
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[OKLady]

here it is, incase you don;t want to go through the hoops of locating it...

U.S. President: George W. Bush

Sunday, October 31, 2004

From all of the misrepresentations and fear-mongering that have sullied another presidential campaign emerges this, best argument: George W. Bush has offered clear leadership against the ghastly threat of international terrorism. While there is no reason to believe John Kerry would take that threat any less seriously, the case to switch leaders must be powerful. The senator hasn't made it.
The attacks that changed the country also changed President Bush. The candidate who derided nation-building and said the United States should be less engaged in the affairs of other countries quickly understood that this policy died on Sept. 11, 2001. In the months that followed, he enrolled most of the world in the fight against terrorism, correctly declaring that success required cooperation. His decision to send troops to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, and destroy al-Qaida's base there, was the right one. Things are far from perfect, but Afghanistan is not the danger to civilization it used to be.

In terms of the terrorist threat, President Bush's ability to stay on message has been impressive. His argument that the war against terrorists required invading Iraq is less persuasive. This was a hard case to make, even if he'd had good intelligence, broad international support, more forces, a better grasp of Iraq's historical resistance to foreign occupiers, and post-war planning which took that into account. He had none of this and ultimately bears responsibility for it.

But Kerry, too, is culpable on Iraq, the result of his Senate vote to give Bush the authority to go to war. The senator says he expected the president to enlist international support and did not expect him to move so quickly to war, but that does not change the fact that his vote, along with 76 others, enabled the incursion he now characterizes as a mistake. This decision undermines his promise of better, wiser, fact-based judgments. Beyond that, Kerry's plan for getting us out of Iraq - to seek international assistance - looks very much like President Bush's. This is less a criticism than an acknowledgement of the paucity of good choices.

Kerry does enjoy an advantage in his claim that he will be better able than Bush to build the international coalitions critical to the pursuit of international terrorists. President Bush has driven away allies and populations in Europe and the Middle East, a serious failing. If he is re-elected, rebuilding ruptured relationships should be a high priority. They are as important now as he said they were in the fall of 2001, when he worked to bring the world together.

On domestic issues, neither candidate is ideal. That the economy did not collapse under the twin hits of terrorism and recession argues well for Bush's tax cuts, which Kerry has promised to maintain except for high-income earners. The senator has made much of the disappearance of jobs under President Bush, arguing that his policies would discourage outsourcing. But unexpected productivity gains have been responsible for most of the job losses, and any president who seeks to restrain them will find himself suffering the wounds of a double-edged sword. George W. Bush may be the world's most powerful man, but his ability to put Americans back to work is more limited than most of us think it is.

On some other issues - notably health care, education and the environment - Kerry has shown a greater appreciation for their complexities as well as their importance. His health-care proposal moves the nation far closer to insuring more people than the president's does. But nothing in his record gives reason to think he will be able to get what he wants done. It is a fair criticism that two decades in the Senate have produced only minimal legislative accomplishments and no major piece of legislation that bears his imprint.

Both men share two great failings, and they are linked. Neither has come to grips with the nation's red ink, a deficit in the last fiscal year expected to total $413 billion, the highest (when inflation is accounted for) since World War II. We're playing tricks again to avoid bumping our heads through the legal debt ceiling. The Concord Coalition has put a $1.33 trillion, 10-year price tag on Bush's proposals (largely his tax cuts) and priced Kerry's at $1.27 trillion. Neither figure includes the costs of preserving Social Security benefits, whether under the present system, as Kerry favors, or in the partially privatized form Bush has endorsed. However, as a second-term president, Bush is more likely than Kerry to address the twin problems of Social Security and Medicare.

It has been a very long election run-up and yet an instructive one. Americans know now that the same conviction which served Bush well after 9-11 serves him poorly when it leads to a stubborn refusal to abandon positions born out of belief, as opposed to facts and evidence. They know that Kerry showed the courage of his convictions in Vietnam and when he returned to speak out bravely against the war but that his votes since then have not shown that same boldness. Kerry has promised a lot, but it's not easy to be sure what he would do if elected president.

George W. Bush's leadership is steadier. With hopes that he will let facts be his guide, and move when the evidence suggests he has planted his feet in the wrong place, we endorse him.


from the pjstar.com

[MAXX]

well, my PROXIMITRON webfilter let me cut thru all these frame-clutter.. here is the DIRECT LINK to the endorsement article..

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/103104/EDI_B4I81V35.002.shtml

enjoy
MAXX (from Austria)

BTW: Proxomitron is one of the best Ad-killer software programs available. Unfortunatley the development was halted but it'S totally open source (a windows proxy) and complete FREEWARE without any spy or adware component contained.. you can filter actions and contents. With it, Yahoo gets virtually ad-free yet I can participate on discussion boards as usual. Thats an achievement

[Snipe]

Sonofagun! That's just as slick as a bucket of boiled okra. All I got
from my Windows XP was "Page Not Found" when I entered that very
same URL. Maybe they're still bent that I didn't renew my subscription
six years or so ago.


_________________
Tin Can Sailor