Decision2004: 7 Florida papers pick Kerry for White House
By AARON SHAROCKMAN

Seven Florida newspapers endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president Sunday while the Tampa Tribune , which traditionally backs a Republican, chose not to recommend a candidate for the first time in 40 years.

The Tribune, which endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, wrote that its editorial board was deeply divided over the president’s handling of the war in Iraq and increased federal spending.

In a page-long explanation, the board criticized Bush’s deficit spending, failed campaign promises and assault on open government. …

“President Bush told us that he was ‘a uniter, not a divider,’ but shortly after taking office, his administration took a sharp right turn that has divided this country,” the editorial said. The newspaper said it was “deeply disappointed” with Bush on federal spending, the budget deficit and the recession. …

The Tribune has endorsed every Republican candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, except for 1964 when it chose not to support either incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson or Republican Barry Goldwater.

“We find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president’s re-election,” the board wrote. “We fully expected to stand with Bush.”

Meanwhile, seven other Florida newspapers, including the St. Petersburg Times , backed Kerry on Sunday.

Capitol Hill Blue: Two Republican-Oriented Newspapers Refuse to Back Bush

The Winston-Salem Journal declined to endorse either candidate, saying “this is a presidency in deep trouble, made worse by the refusal to acknowledge the trouble.”

WFTV.com – Politics – Round Of Florida Endorsements Overwhelmingly For Kerry

In contrast, Democratic candidate John Kerry received overwhelming support in electoral vote-rich Florida, picking up the support of seven newspapers as polls point to a dead heat in the state that decided the 2000 election. …

A day before the start of early voting, the Massachusetts senator was backed by the Bradenton Herald, The Daytona Beach News-Journal, Florida Today, The Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post, the St. Petersburg Times and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Reflecting the mood of the electorate, some of the editorials were more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry. The Post assailed Bush as a “reckless ideologue” who “has divided the country against itself and the world against the country.”

Added the Bradenton Herald: “Bush’s administration is notable for its lack of transparency, its intolerance of dissent, its refusal to admit mistakes.”

Newspapers endorsing Kerry lamented the squandered goodwill showered on America in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Daily Endorsement Tally: Bush Picks up a Pair

Kerry … picked up the support of six large papers over the weekend, and still leads Bush 11-8 in endorsements, according to E&P’s tally. And the papers that have chosen Kerry top the Bush backers in circulation by about a 4-1 margin: 2,534,377 to 637,187 total daily circ.

Those totals are as of 10/11; I’m waiting for this week’s totals, which will include all those Florida papers. mjh

STOP SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP

join the 113387 people who have signed so far

What is Sinclair Broadcast Group?
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., is one of the largest television broadcasters in the country. By its own count, Sinclair owns, operates, or services 62 local television stations in 39 markets – reaching 24% of television households in the United States.
Source: Sinclair Broadcast Group, www.sbgi.net

What is Stolen Honor?
According to its creators, Stolen Honor is a “documentary” claiming to “expos[e] John Kerry’s record of betrayal.” The film is funded by a group of conservative activists.
Sources: www.stolenhonor.com
Los Angeles Times, 10/9/04, “Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film”

What is Sinclair Broadcast Group planning to do?
Sinclair has told its stations to air Stolen Honor. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Sinclair is forcing its stations to preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film.
Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/9/04, “Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film”

Haven’t we heard this from Sinclair before?
In April 2004, Sinclair ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel’s Nightline broadcast featuring a roll call of the 700 U.S. troops who had died in Iraq. Republican Sen. John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was among the many who criticized Sinclair’s action.
Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/9/04, “Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film”

Is Sinclair trying to affect the outcome of the Presidential election?
In the 2004 political cycle, executives from Sinclair have given nearly $67,784 in political contributions, 97% to Republicans. We just report, you decide.
Source: The Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org

Do we support free speech?
Absolutely. And free speech means expressing our outrage when a major corporation with a history of right-wing bias tries to change the outcome of an election by airing a slanted, inaccurate documentary.

2004 Presidential Electoral College Predictions

Last auto-update with new polls from 2.004k.com: October 18th, 01:01 PM

Bush wins the electoral college with probability 39.3%
The probability of an electoral college tie is 1.277%
Kerry wins the electoral college with probability 59.423%

Expected Kerry winning margin: 10.4 electoral votes (95% confidence interval: [-138 124] votes)

HoustonChronicle.com – Why abortion rate is up in Bush years By GLEN HAROLD STASSEN and GARY KRANE

When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies.)

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

We found four states that have posted three-year statistics: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002. Colorado’s rates skyrocketed 111 percent. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).

Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

For anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this is no surprise:

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite “inability to afford a child” as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). In the Bush presidency, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Herbert Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. And men who are jobless usually do not marry. In the 16 states, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency — with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million — abortion increases.

My wife and I know — as does my son David — that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father and every child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif. He can be e-mailed at gstassen@fuller.edu.

Krane is an independent investigative journalist in Philadelphia.Readers can write to him at 151 Tulpehocken, Philadelphia, PA 19144 or Coordinator@FairElections.us.

Wow. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. mjh

“Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.”

FresnoBee.com: Nation: Study: Recession widened racial wealth gap

The enormous wealth gap between white families and blacks and Hispanics grew larger after the most recent recession, a private analysis of government data finds.

White households had a median net worth of greater than $88,000 in 2002, 11 times more than Hispanics and more than 14 times that of blacks, the Pew Hispanic Center said in a study being released Monday. …

Only white homes recouped all their losses between 2001 and 2002. Both Hispanics and blacks lost nearly 27 percent of net worth between 1999 and 2001; the next year Latinos had gained almost all back (26 percent) though blacks were up only about 5 percent.

Does this have more to do with the supposed recession or Bush economic policy? mjh

HoustonChronicle.com – Broadcast company unafraid to push agenda By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, AP

Sinclair owns more TV stations than anyone outside the major networks. And it is not at all shy about using its clout to advance a conservative agenda.

The company, run by the Smith family, finds itself in the middle of a political storm over an anti-John Kerry documentary it plans to air before the election. The company has asked its 62 television stations — many of them in swing states — to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary, which is critical of Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam three decades ago.

The impact of the documentary could be large, considering the Sinclair Broadcast Group reaches about a quarter of all U.S. television households from California to Maine. …

The company amassed its stations as federal regulations were relaxed on station ownership [mjh: under Raygun?]. At the same time, it became a generous political donor, giving $172,454 to Republican causes and $6,750 to Democratic campaigns since 1994.

Robert Zelnick, chairman of the journalism department at Boston University, said Sinclair is more conservative than the Fox network.

But he said that while Fox “maintains at least a public claim of objectivity — ‘We report, you decide’ ” — Sinclair is blatant about its conservative bent.

Though they have a far reach, if Sinclair is mostly cable AND well-known to be conservative, they’re probably reaching Bush supporters, not undecided voters. They’ll disgust many with their self-serving manipulation. mjh

The President Vanishes (washingtonpost.com) By Richard Cohen

Historians may someday say that the beginning of the end for Bush came last April when Time magazine’s John Dickerson asked the president at a televised news conference, “What would your biggest mistake be . . . and what lessons have you learned from it?” Bush, who said the question took him by surprise, said he could not come up with one.

Essentially the same question was asked by Linda Grabel, an ordinary voter, at the St. Louis debate. This time, it could not have been a surprise. But this time, too, Bush could offer not a single substantive example. Aside from making “some mistakes in appointing people,” everything had gone swimmingly.

This was a preposterous, dishonest answer. It was either the response of someone who is vastly deluded or sticking to a political strategy conceived by people who do not value truth.

[Thanks, Anne!]