Newspaper at World's Largest U.S. Naval-Marine Base Endorses Kerry
Tempest
Norfolk and Virginia Beach, this is huge in Pat Robertson country.
---------------
A course change: The Virginian-Pilot endorses John Kerry
The Virginian-Pilot
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=77017&ran=214061
George W. Bush oiled the troubled waters of his 2000 election by
promising to govern as a unifier and a compassionate conservative.
Four years later, the nation is more bitterly split than ever. That is
because the president abandoned the middle ground of the Republican
Party in favor of its ideological edge.
He discourages internal dissent, equates disagreement with disloyalty
and presents the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an unassailable
justification for whatever course the administration takes.
If polls are correct, half of America stands ready to reward his
performance with a second term. Their trust rests on faith in the
transparency of Bush's character, that you get what you see, that no
one believes more fervently than Bush that freedom is rising abroad
and prosperity is around the corner at home.
In anxious and uncertain times, his confidence and clarity carry
undeniable appeal.
But Americans must approach this election governed by their heads as
well as their hearts.
Resolve is no substitute for results. Americans need to answer
honestly: Has Bush strengthened our national security? Our economic
security? Our retirement security? Or have his judgments jeopardized
all three?
National security. Bush greeted the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon
and the World Trade Center with passion and steely purpose. He routed
the Taliban in Afghanistan, earning worldwide applause. It was his
finest hour.
But when the bull's-eye shifted from Osama bin Laden to Saddam
Hussein, the unraveling began.
From the start, Bush failed to square with the American people about
the true nature of his bold gamble to establish a democratic beachhead
in Iraq.
He justified the venture first on the basis of a nonexistent bond
between al-Qaida and Saddam, next on equally non-existent weapons of
mass destruction. Duped by misplaced faith in shadowy Iraqi resistance
figures, Bush wrongly assumed that we would be greeted as liberators,
not occupiers. He failed to protect Iraq's infrastructure, failed to
foresee the consequences of disbanding the Iraqi army, failed to have
enough troops on the ground to secure a peace.
It's not as if no one warned him. Beginning with Brent Scowcroft, his
father's national security adviser, a host of respected leaders in the
military and intelligence communities raised objections, only to be
silenced by Bush's certitude and the deafening drumbeats of war.
Equally troubling, on the home front, Bush asked nothing in the way of
sacrifice — not a halt in tax cuts, not a delay in Medicare
prescription drug benefits, not even a little less mileage on the SUV.
The dissembling continues to this day. Earlier this month the Duelfer
report dished up the last word on weapons of mass destruction. "We
were almost all wrong," the chief weapons inspector said. Yet Bush
persists in arguing that he got it right.
Meanwhile, the body count rises, our moral authority sags and Iraq
looks more and more like what we most feared: a breeding ground for
terrorists.
Economic security. Bush inherited a recession. That is not his fault.
He promised that tax cuts would put America back to work.
Congress obliged. But today we have fewer jobs than when Bush took
office. And by cutting revenues and increasing spending we have traded
a record surplus for a record deficit.
That's because when circumstances changed with 9/11, Bush didn't. He
held fast to tax cuts while beefing up spending for the war and
homeland security, all defensible. What's indefensible is that he also
invited an explosion in domestic spending, including an unaffordable
prescription drug plan that is the largest escalation of Medicare in
its history.
Now, instead of a $4.6 trillion, 10-year surplus, the nation faces
debt as far as the eye can see.
We are gobbling up more than our children's inheritances. We are
robbing their future paychecks to repay our debts.
Retirement security. That same recklessness has diminished America's
ability to make good on its promises to seniors.
In 1960, the ratio of workers to retirees was better than 5 to 1. By
2030, it will be just over 2 to 1. By 2018 the Social Security system
will start paying out more in benefits than it takes in through taxes.
Bush should have applied some of the surplus to that systemic
Frankenstein. To keep faith with the future, he should have been
building a financial cushion to soften the blow.
He did not.
He elevated the short-term gratification of tax cuts, including breaks
for the nation's wealthiest citizens, over the long-term stability of
a critical safety net. His lack of foresight has made a bad situation
worse.
To our regret, Massachussetts Sen. John Kerry has also over-promised
with the nation's resources.
Kerry has yet to square his pledge to never raise taxes on the middle
class with the reality that revenue to rescue Social Security and
Medicare will have to come from somewhere.
But at least Kerry proposes to return to the principle of
pay-as-you-go for ordinary federal spending. And he doesn't advocate
destabilizing Social Security by allowing personally owned retirement
accounts, as does Bush.
We have misgivings about Kerry's ability to connect with ordinary
people. We were frustrated by his long-winded explanations. And he
hasn't been as forthright as we'd like on America's slim hopes for
reclaiming lost overseas jobs.
But on balance, Kerry is a better choice. He has shown more substance
than the flip-flopping caricature drawn by his opponents. He
demonstrates an admirable seriousness of purpose, steadiness under
fire, and a grasp of the complexities of domestic and foreign policy
issues.
Contrary to claims that he tilts with the prevailing winds, Kerry has
throughout his lifetime charted an independent course. His zigs and
zags reflect his digestion of new information and his arrival at new
insights, not slavish devotion to public opinion.
There is no better example of his convictions than his decades-long
involvement with Vietnam.
As a young man he elected to go to war at a time when few of his
economic and social class took such personal risk. Disillusioned by
the experience, he came home to challenge the moral justification for
that war at the highest levels of government.
Over time, the prevailing historical view of the Vietnam War has
aligned with Kerry's. But when he spoke out in Washington, his was a
minority voice. Then, as decades passed and the nation wanted nothing
more than to forget Vietnam, Kerry insisted on a more honorable
conclusion.
With Republican Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, he scoured the
countryside for evidence of surviving American captives. With GOP Sen.
John McCain of Arizona, he led in persuading President Clinton to
normalize relations with the country.
Common sense and practicality rank high among Kerry's attributes. He
supports importing prescription drugs from Canada, expanding embryonic
stem cell research and rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy to
finance an innovative answer to high health-insurance premiums.
In poll after poll, Americans say that the nation is on the wrong
track. They are right. It is time for fresh leadership at the
Pentagon, time for a president who will hold subordinates accountable,
time for a chief executive with the wisdom to recognize fatal
miscalculations.
If you want the same results, you keep doing the same thing. We do not
doubt George Bush's good intentions. We doubt his judgment. The
results speak for themselves.
John Kerry has demonstrated the personal courage and intellectual
stamina to put the nation on a sounder course.