Sunday, October 10, 2004 With the nation closely divided over
what
direction the country should take in both foreign and domestic policy,
the major-party candidates for president and their supporters have
sought an edge through negative campaigning.
So this has been a campaign dominated
not by ideas, but
demonization. President Bush is portrayed by the left as
unthinking,
reckless and stubborn, despite his worthy efforts at leading the nation
through some very difficult times. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
meanwhile,
is accused of not being open-minded or thoughtful and instead is a
"flip-flopper" whose commendable and clearly authentic war heroism is
called into question. Each man has an impressive record of
public service. Though neither
man is without flaw, each is an established leader who can be counted
upon to do his best to protect the nation and see to the well-being of
its citizens. Despite the best efforts of the
campaigns to do otherwise, what
sets these men apart is not their qualifications to be president, but
their positions on the issues. Bush and Kerry offer decidedly
different
visions for the country. It is on this basis that the candidates
are
best judged, and it is because we believe Kerry has, on the whole, the
better plan for America that we endorse him for President of the United
States. BETTER APPROACH ABROAD In his initial debate with the
president, Kerry closed the
credibility gap opened up by his opponents on his approach to world
affairs, and in particular to the war in Iraq. Recognizing that the United States
cannot unilaterally withdraw
from Iraq, Kerry would boost the American troop presence there
marginally and seek more support from allies. It's not at all certain that America's
allies, in particular
European nations, would be willing to put troops on the ground in Iraq,
but Kerry would be right to seek such cooperation. In any event, his
election would provide the potential for a fresh start with world
leaders unhappy with current U.S. policy on Iraq. It should be noted that neither Kerry
nor his opponent have given
enough attention in this campaign to the gathering threat posed by
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Still, Kerry's pledge to make
American foreign policy and the war on terrorism less centered on Iraq
suggests a better posture for dealing with the multitude of security
concerns facing the United States. MORE SECURITY AT HOME While Bush the man has demonstrated
strong leadership qualities,
many of the policies he has pursued have failed. Of particular
concern
is the president's handling of the economy - which has been shaky
throughout his term - and the related issue of the federal budget. Bush's dogged pursuit of tax cuts at
the expense of fiscal
responsibility has produced an unprecedented deficit in dollar terms -
though as a percentage of the overall size of the economy it is well
short of a record. This red ink is not healthy for the
economy in either the short or
long term. Over time, it makes interest rates higher than they
would
otherwise be. It also threatens the government's ability to tend to
problems such as the looming shortfall in Social Security and funding
the war on terrorism. It's not just the tax cuts that have
created the problem. Spending
has grown dramatically under Bush. He has not lived up to the
Republican conviction of smaller government. For example, he has
put
his signature on a bloated farm subsidy bill and an expensive Medicare
prescription drug bill that does not appear to be an effective response
to the inability of many seniors to afford the medicines they need. True, Kerry's plans for taxing and
spending do not add up to
significant deficit reductions, but the Democrat differs from the
president in one important respect on the deficit: He supports
"pay-as-you-go" rules for both new spending initiatives and tax
cuts.
These rules would require new initiatives to be offset by either
spending cuts or new taxes. The president opposes having them
apply to
tax cuts. Beyond the critical matter of the
deficit, Kerry has better
approaches to other pressing issues, including health care, education,
energy and environmental policy.
An initial supporter of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act, Kerry
now says he would make changes to it. That's not a flip-flop, but
a
reasoned response to federal policy that has not worked as well as
originally intended. Of particular merit in Kerry's agenda
is his desire to shift the
focus of American energy policy from increasing the supply of oil and
gas to the development of alternative sources of energy and
conservation. That's not only smart domestic policy, but it will
enhance U.S. security abroad by reducing the nation's dependence on
foreign oil. Bush's environmental record, on the
whole, is not as bad as his
detractors try to paint it, but the president clearly endorses fewer
environmental protections than does Kerry. The more sensible path
is
toward greater environmental protection. Americans' health
suffers
because of dirty air, dangerous mercury contaminates our waters and the
government will soon be back in the business of subsidizing logging on
federal lands. Kerry's approach to the environment would better
address
these issues and more. HIGH COURT COULD SHIFT With four members of the U.S. Supreme
Court over the age of 70, the
next president is likely to have the opportunity to shape its
ideological framework for years to come. This has many
implications and
one issue especially stands out: President Bush is committed to
appointing justices willing to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that
underpins abortion rights. Reversal of Roe would harm the
reproductive rights of women, of
course, but could also drive abortion services underground, making it
unsafe for those who choose exercise this right. The person best
qualified to decide whether to have an abortion is the woman who is
pregnant. The candidate most likely to protect that right to
choose is
Kerry. Like his opponent, John Kerry has the
skills and the experience to
be commander in chief. He also has an agenda that would serve
Americans
better than that of his opponent. For that reason, he merits our
endorsement for president.
It's not enough to pursue office by outlining distinctly
different
ideas for moving the nation forward. The people in the middle,
those
genuine undecided voters, are not always motivated by the entreaties of
the left or right.
Kerry's solid health care plan includes government help with paying
for the most costly medical cases, expansion of proven programs
covering low- and moderate-income people and giving the uninsured
access to the health care plans used by federal employees. How
much can
be done in this arena, however, depends on how good a job is done
taming the deficit, and Kerry would be wise to temper his promises
accordingly.
Editorial
board members are: Publisher and CEO of Blethen Maine Newspapers
Charles Cochran, Editor and Vice President Geninne Guttman, Editorial
Page Editor John W. Porter, Editorial Writer Nikki Kallio, and
Editorial Writer Micheal Harmon. A useful commentary piece by
Porter, "It's not just about influencing outcomes," accompanied the endorsement. Porter
wrote, "...we're not telling people how to
vote. We are trying
to stir the pot and get people engaged. We're hoping, too, to add
perspective."