National Rifle Association Endorses Bush

The National Rifle Association endorsed President Bush for re-election on Wednesday, promising millions of dollars for ads, phone banks and other get-out-the-vote efforts.

“The Supreme Court is going to be crucial to the future of the Second Amendment, and President Bush will appoint justices that respect the Bill of Rights,” NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in a phone interview before announcing the endorsement at a news conference in Duluth, Minn.
—
Kerry (at the 3rd debate):

“I am a hunter. I’m a gun owner. I’ve been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.”

Column:Bush policies not conservative – Daily Lobo – Opinion by Dane Roberts, Daily Lobo columnist

In 2000, I called myself a Republican, supported George W. Bush’s candidacy, and even traveled to Washington to witness his inauguration. Come Election Day 2004, I ardently hope he is not re-elected.

While my dismay with Bush drove me away from the Republican Party, many more voters retain their party affiliation but will not vote for Bush on Nov. 2. Many of us are wondering how any Republican, moderate or otherwise, can muster any enthusiasm for Bush.

The best justification for being a conservative has always been a healthy suspicion of government size and power. By this standard, Bush fails.

The most frightening thing about the Bush administration, and the first thing that sent red flags up for me, is the penchant for excessive secrecy. Bush’s White House was unusually secretive even before Sept. 11. Since then, it has been brazenly hostile to the principle of open government, from stonewalling the Sept. 11 commission to encouraging government agencies to deny requests under the Freedom of Information Act whenever possible.

John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon, knows something about secrecy in the White House and calls Bush’s “the most secretive presidency of my lifetime.” The government has become significantly less accountable to the American people as a result of Bush’s term in office.

Furthermore, Bush’s record in expanding the size of government is closer to the biggest of the big-government Democrats than that of any Republican president. …

What happened to the Republican Party of 2000 that called a balanced budget a “moral imperative?” What happened to the Bush of 2001 who said, “We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade” and “future generations shouldn’t be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed”? …

The truth is, Bush’s campaign is as un-Christian as any. Karl Rove, Bush’s political strategist, is the dirtiest player in American politics. In previous races, he’s tried to undermine his political opponents by starting rumors of homosexuality and insanity.

Many Republicans have caught on to all this and will be voting Kerry this November. Though he’s not a perfect candidate, a Republican-led Congress would oppose his spending proposals in a way they haven’t been able to with Bush. Most importantly, Kerry would save the Republican Party from itself, stopping Bush from leading the party further down the path of his irresponsible policies.

Republicans Against Bush

Steinem talks democracy – Daily Lobo – News By Matthew Chavez

America is controlled by the ultra-right, which represents one-third of the population, and is effectively rallied by the National Rifle Association and Christian fundamentalist groups, she said.

“I think of them as the people our European ancestors came here to escape,” she said.

While 90 percent of conservatives vote regularly, less than 60 percent of centrists and liberals turn out to the polls, she said.

“That is the problem,” she said. …

“If (single) women would have voted in the same proportion as married women in the last election, we would have had such a huge margin against Bush that even shenanigans wouldn’t have been able to fix it,” she said.

Albuquerque Tribune Online

The Tribune endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.

He has earned the job – and the chance to return security, prosperity, freedom, consensus and the American identity to a nation at odds with the world and itself.

The United States has lost its way under President Bush, who too often has failed on both foreign and domestic fronts. Worse, he has been unable to unite a deeply divided nation.

Bush, whom The Tribune endorsed in 2000, has offered simplistic slogans to complex problems, while Kerry sees complicated problems and offers the promise of appropriate solutions – complex or not.

The reality is the world is not a simple place, seldom black or white, and Kerry knows that intuitively. He understands the gray, the nuance – and that easy-bake solutions like nuclear weapons, Navy carriers and conservative or liberal platitudes usually don’t apply or work.

This is critical in addressing big picture issues from Iraq to the economy. Kerry’s style, attention to detail and global view will serve this nation better in the long run.

The Tribune believes Kerry offers the best leadership for the vast majority of New Mexicans and other Americans, who identify with his vision of who we are, where we need to go and how best to get there.

Why not Bush?

From the war in Iraq and the acidic sections of the Patriot Act to global warming and national energy policy, Bush’s foreign and domestic policies have been based on secrecy, fear, distortion and misinformation.

For these reasons, we urge independent and undecided voters in particular to double-check what Bush says against what he has done…. [keep reading]

Kerry Takes Early Lead in Newspaper Endorsements (washingtonpost.com) By Brian Faler and Jo Becker

This just in: John F. Kerry popular with editorial writers.

The Democratic presidential nominee has jumped out to an early lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, especially from those in the all-important swing states.

Kerry has won the support of nine papers in closely contested states, while four are backing President Bush. Both of Philadelphia’s major newspapers — the Inquirer and the Daily News — have endorsed Kerry. So has the Oregonian, which backed Bush in 2000. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Detroit Free Press, the Daily Star in Tucson, the Portland Press Herald in Maine and both of the big papers in Seattle — the Times and the Post-Intelligencer — have announced their support for Kerry.

Daily Endorsement Tally By Greg Mitchell

Total Pro-Kerry Daily Circ: 2,534,377 [11 papers]
Total Pro-Bush Daily Circ: 637,187 [8 papers]

This site compiles newspaper editorial endorsements of the candidates, with figures for circulation and who each paper endorsed in 2000. Three of the papers that now endorse Kerry endorsed Bush in 2000.

Strangely, they don’t include Bush’s hometown paper. mjh

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

[Thanks for the leads from Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire]

2004 Presidential Electoral College Predictions

Currently, Bush’s probability of winning the electoral college is 44.955%. The probability of an electoral college tie is 1.394%. Kerry wins with probability 53.651%. [The site is updated hourly!. See page for details.]

The site above uses data from the site below:

2.004k.com: Polling Data for 2004 Elections: By State

Electoral Votes

Needed to Win: 270 Electoral Votes

All states (based on most-current poll only):
Bush = 266
Kerry = 268
Tied = 4

Solid states (most-current poll is beyond statistical Margin of Error):
Bush = 149
Kerry = 185

Number of swing states (most-current poll is within Margin of Error): 19
11 swing states voted for Bush in 2000
8 swing states voted for Gore in 2000

Checking the Facts, in Advance By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times

It’s not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you’ll hear, and the truth about each:

[see for yourself]

By singling out Mr. Bush’s lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn’t equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that’s the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush’s statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry’s choice of words are betraying their readers.