Sunday, October 31, 2004

RI Paper Endorses Bush

So, I'm a little blown away. The Providence Journal has endorsed George W. Bush for re-election.
President George W. Bush is not to everyone's taste. He is a proud Texan with an equally proud New England-Ivy League pedigree, a conservative who has dramatically increased federal spending, a plain-spoken man whose candor is a stronger suit than his diplomacy. But from the moment that the first airplane smashed into the World Trade Center, President Bush fully understood the stakes for civilization in the war on terrorism, and has kept his eye resolutely on his mission: the security of the American people, and of those who stand with us in the war against terrorism.

He has made it plain that terrorism will not be defeated quickly or easily, and he has been willing to take huge political risks to try to ensure our safety. For that reason, above all others, we endorse President Bush for re-election.

This is not to say that Sen. John Kerry is an unworthy challenger. He is an intelligent, articulate man who has had many cogent and critical things to say about the Bush administration, some of which we agree with. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and an experienced member of the U.S. Senate. Some of his positions on domestic issues are considerably closer to ours than are President Bush's.

But on the one issue of our time that transcends all others -- the war against terrorism -- Senator Kerry does not offer a reassuring alternative.

When he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry declared that "any attack will be met with a swift and certain response," and that is the essential difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush. Mr. Kerry is prepared to react to terrorism; Mr. Bush is determined to take the war to the terrorists before they strike at us again.(/snip)

We do not understate the difficulty of the struggle against the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. But after the mass graves, the torture, the corruption, the forced impoverishment of the Iraqi people by murderous and luxury-loving Saddam and his associates, the use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds, the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations and the threat of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-arms program, we find it difficult to understand why anyone would have opposed Saddam Hussein's ouster.

With his record of courage and resolution, we believe that President George W. Bush, in a second term, would not only build on the coalition he has already assembled against terrorism but also help establish Mideast peace and broaden democracy in that tortured region. In so doing, he would help ensure the long-term security of the United States.

Well how about that? Here in a deep Blue state some get it on the major point. Good enough for me.