An editorial from a few years ago...
George W. Bush for president
The presidential race has become a teeth-gnashing affair for many Americans, no matter if they have a strong preference and pray that it will be realized, or if they resemble the Colorado voter who blanched the other day when we expressed surprise that after all the tumult, he remains undecided.
It isn't so much that I'm undecided, he said. I'm conflicted.
Well, of course.
Typically, in the case of an incumbent, our endorsement calculation would begin this way: Are we, as Coloradans, better off today than we were four years ago?
In a word, no. Since 2001, Colorado has lost more jobs than we've gained, and the ones we've gained pay less than the ones we've lost. We pay less in taxes, but our household and medical expenses have skyrocketed. Ninety thousand of us have lost our health coverage. Washington is ringing up record deficits and sticking the next generation with the bill. In Iraq, Colorado-based military units and reserves are deployed in a hostile environment for questionable purpose and uncertain result.
Yet, in the context of Nov. 2, it isn't sensible to assess the state of our union in easily definable ways. Ours is an era in which security matters most, and national security is the preeminent duty of the next president.
On Sept. 11, 2001, this country accepted a great challenge - to inflict justice on terrorists who would attack us and to take every reasonable step to protect our homeland. The task has been pursued with dogged resolution, and we think President Bush is best suited to continue the fight.
In making this endorsement, we don't see that American politics need to be so polarized. Just for the record, we consider both Bush and Kerry qualified to be president, and we don't think the world will come to an end if voters turn to the Democrat.
Bush has labored erratically since his 2001 inauguration, and his first-term performance seems to have cheered and angered Coloradans in equal numbers. But decisiveness is a crucial characteristic in the showdown with the nation's elusive enemies. We believe he meets the test, and we aren't sure about John Kerry. So the president has our endorsement for a second term, even as we call on him to steer a more moderate course that is in keeping with his campaign appearances, but not his first-term performance.
It's no secret that we part company with the president over many issues. Two glaring sore spots are his obsession to cut taxes even while piling up record deficits, and his mishandling of all things Iraq. He squandered global good will by taking a "my way or the highway" approach to matters of global warming, international law, Iraq weapons inspections and ultimately the Iraq invasion. He bows to corporate preference in matters of energy and environment, and his education funding levels leave far too many children behind.
Kerry has infused the 2004 campaign with energy and gumption, offering fresh ideas on health care and sensible plans for our tax structure. His are the superior proposals on environmental protection, on stem-cell research and judicial nominations. Sure, we've seen Kerry bend to the political winds over his long career, but we wouldn't mind one bit if more Washington politicians would reconsider their past judgments and ideological certainties. Kerry's growth on the campaign trail gives a glimpse of his potential.
Still, his actions in Congress raise doubts regarding Kerry's ability to safeguard the national security. He has not demonstrated willingness to consider firm military options when American strength is being tested, nor the resolve to see a policy through a rough patch. Even in 1990, when the United States had such broad global support for the effort to oust Iraq from Kuwait, Sen. Kerry voted no. We believe Kerry when he says he would never seek a permission slip from the United Nations to defend America, but his emphasis on putting U.S. policy to a global test grants too much leverage to undependable partners like Russia, France or Germany.
Kerry has earned our respect with a tenacious approach to this campaign. We think he would be a stronger candidate at a juncture when Washington has more latitude to balance security issues with domestic and diplomatic initiatives.
Time to take responsibility
Our support for Bush is tempered by unease over the poor choices and results of his first term. To succeed in his second-term, Bush must begin by taking responsibility for U.S. failures in Iraq, admit his mistakes and adjust U.S. strategy. Big time, as his running mate might say.
Neither Bush nor Kerry propose an abrupt withdrawal, so Iraq may well be a straitjacket for whoever is elected. Homilies aside, the U.S. has been unable to provide Iraqis with fundamental security and services. We await a timetable and a clear intent to withdraw, but the United States cannot leave Iraq until the country is secure and some version of democracy has taken hold. Withdrawal too soon could ignite a lethal civil war and the possibility that we'd have to return someday and overthrow a real threat to international order. In the meantime, Iran and North Korea require America's utmost attention. Their leaders are well aware that U.S. forces are stretched thin.
Kerry, in the first debate, proposed to hold a world summit on Iraq. Bush, seen by much of the world as a lone cowboy, then ticked off a list of modest meetings as if they fit the bill. Kerry raises fair criticism when he points out that the United States cannot afford to pay 90 percent of the costs and endure 90 percent of the coalition casualties. But he errs in basing his plans for post-war Iraq on persuading reluctant allies to commit troops and resources. Countries like France and Germany have their own fish to fry and it's naive to base U.S. policy on their willingness to join up with the U.S. and the U.K.
The president sent U.S. forces into Iraq 18 months ago to oust Saddam Hussein, but with no plan to handle any subsequent resistance. Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraqis would greet the invasion force as liberators, quite a miscalculation, and there was no Plan B. Coalition forces have been unable to defend Iraqi oil assets from insurgent sabotage. It's hard to believe the United States could have done a worse job planning for a new Iraq.
To do: On the morning of Nov. 3, Bush should summon Colin Powell and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to draft a realistic roadmap toward Iraqi security, stability and democratic elections. Yes, they should consult with allies and critics alike.
Taxing and spending
The heart of the president's economic plan is based on one very good idea - tax cuts to stimulate economic growth - but he's tilted its impact to favor asset growth for wealthy families rather than business growth.
Such tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, and the recovery has been a tepid one in Colorado and elsewhere. Some on the far right want to use tax reduction to downsize government, but since Bush also continues to spend - unbelievably, he's never vetoed a spending bill - his tax cuts just add to the dangerously high deficit. His successor, whenever, will have to raise taxes to pay down the debt.
When Bush took office, Clinton-era prosperity was already giving way. The stock market was dropping and Americans were losing high-paying jobs in the dot-com bust. Bush responded with one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history, and by August 2001, Americans started receiving $300 checks in the mail. Most families spent the money on TV sets, toasters, clothing or medicine. Wealthy taxpayers just tucked their refunds into bank accounts - contributing little to fuel the languishing economy.
To do: In his second term, Bush should take up the new GOP mantra of tax simplification. That would benefit Americans more than another cut that amounts to a few hundred bucks or faux "incentives" to well-heeled corporations.
The nation's operating account was in surplus when Bush took office, but this year's deficit rang in at $413 billion.
The second key task of the next presidency will be to give up tax breaks for the wealthy and lead Washington back to fiscal responsibility.
Bush must be a uniter
Bush was ushered into office in 2000 by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision. America was a 50-50 nation then, as we are now. He lost the popular vote, yet governed as if he'd been anointed by a conservative landslide.
The 2004 winner isn't going to have much of a mandate either, and it is high time Bush move away from the extremes. As a campaigner in 2000, Bush said he would be a uniter, not a divider, building on his success as governor of Texas. He missed an obvious opportunity to sustain a "one nation" ethos following Sept. 11, and to avoid a prolonged political stalemate he should take steps to narrow the divide.
To do: Bush can start by appointing problem-solvers to his Cabinet and to the courts. We've been impressed with some of his nominees - Colin Powell, Tom Ridge and Mike Leavitt, for example - and flabbergasted with others. How on earth did John Ashcroft amass so much power? We need an attorney general who will balance security imperatives with respect for individual rights and due process. A reform-minded intelligence director should be appointed with marching orders to modernize the nation's first line of defense.
To do: Bush has featured a cast of moderate Republicans in his campaign - Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain among others. In a second term, he should move GOP moderates and deficit hawks into positions of influence. Richard Nixon hired Pat Moynihan, and Bush might want to reach out for Democratic talent, too.
Looking to the future
Bush faced enormous challenges when he took office. He'd been president only eight months when 19 al-Qaeda terrorists slammed airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Hijackers of a fourth plane, en route to the White House or the Capitol, were challenged by heroic passengers, and the jet was crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The president hit every note in consoling the nation, summoning its resolve and leading an international coalition into Afghanistan to confront the perpetrators and their sponsors.
But respect for his leadership was sharply diminished by U.S. missteps in Iraq and evidence that the president had ignored frequent warnings of Osama bin Laden's murderous ambition. Even so, there is opportunity for Bush to make adjustments that will validate the sacrifices of coalition forces and Iraqis themselves.
Bush's presidency, whether one term or two, will be defined by Sept. 11, 2001, and his ability to safeguard the nation. For three years, Americans have lived under the specter of terrorism and orange alerts. That threat must be defeated and our leaders must be committed to a future of peace, prosperity and renewed respect for global values. The president can learn a valuable lesson by studying the path of a predecessor. Ronald Reagan angered some world leaders and domestic opponents when he took a hard line toward the Soviet Union in his first term, but he was alert to changing winds and in his second term he toured Red Square, engineered a far-reaching arms agreement and offered a strategic embrace to Mikhail Gorbachev as the two men cast off the Cold War. That's the kind of leadership the United States should offer. We believe George W. Bush is up to the challenge.
