Weekly Shredder 16:
The Tampa Tribune's Nonendorsement
by James Norton

The article's title is simple: "Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election." It lands on the page like a lead weight hitting ceramic tile.

The words are weary but angry, beaten down but pragmatically defiant.

In many publications, a Bush non-endorsement would scarcely be surprising. But the Tampa Tribune is a remarkable kind of paper:

The Tribune has endorsed a Republican for president ever since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, with one exception. We did not endorse in the 1964 presidential race because, as we said at the time, "it is our feeling that unless a newspaper can recommend a candidate with complete conviction that he be the better choice for the office, it should make no endorsement."

Is the Tribune finally breaking from its rock-ribbed Republican ideals?

No. It's Bush and friends who have gone off the reservation, putting the paper in the unpleasant position of having to play grumpy uncle.

As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re-election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a "uniter not a divider" within the United States and the world.

This isn't mudslinging. This isn't partisan rhetoric. It's the sober declaration of a paper that is stubbornly operating in reality, as opposed to the utopian dreamscape constructed by the various psychotic trolls working in the administration's assorted rhetoric workshops.

The Tribune cites reasons that span the political world. They include the anchor of Bush's foreign policy (Iraq), the anchor of his domestic policy (deficits brought on by irresponsible tax cuts for the rich), and the anchor of his rhetoric (acid-spraying us-against-themism).

What's more, the Tribune is more than just an isolated voice of reason. According to Editor and Publisher, nine major regional or national papers have switched from endorsing Bush in 2000 to endorsing Kerry in 2004. Three other papers (including the Tampa Tribune) have gone from endorsing Bush to backing neither candidate. Even the Iconoclast, the local paper in Crawford, Texas, has switched from a 2000 Bush endorsement to an endorsement of John Kerry.

Thus far, one — and only one — paper has moved from backing Gore in 2000 to backing Bush in 2004. Its circulation? 46,554. The combined circ of the nine papers switching to Kerry? 934,187.

Even though the traditionally conservative paper's trenchant non-endorsement of Bush is as good as a Kerry endorsement (or better — it comes to the table with incredible credibility as a critic of the president's rhetoric), it takes some reflexive shots at the Democrat, as well.

Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose undistinguished Senate record stands at odds with our conservative principles and whose positions on the Iraq war — the central issue in this campaign — have been difficult to distinguish or differentiate.

Neither of these criticisms holds up well to rigorous scrutiny, but the Tribune's problems are understandable. In defiance of Kerry's distinguished Senate record as a prosecutor of BCCI, an investigator of Iran-Contra, and a bipartisan healer of wounds in the POW-MIA affair, the Democrats turned their convention into a Saving Private Ryan military effects spectacular, rather than letting Kerry's record speak quietly — but powerfully — for itself. While obscuring Kerry's very real Senate accomplishments, it made him "fair game" for the nasty Swift Vet gambit, a slime-hurling campaign of lies and half-truths that is still being "debunked and disemboweled by the likes of Nightline".

And while the Tribune's point about Kerry's record on the vote for the resolution on the use of force ignores his clear trail of public statements (which support using the threat of force to put inspectors on the ground, but not giving the president a blank check to wage unilateral war) is understandable. The Republican distortions of the record were systematic, and Kerry's statements have been confusing and elliptical at times.

The next header within the Tribune's story hits like a hammer: "Bush Overstated The Evidence."

His administration terrified us into believing that we had to quickly wage war with Baghdad to ensure our safety. Vice President Dick Cheney said he had "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice wrongly asserted that aluminum tubes found in Iraq could be used only for nuclear weapons. And the president himself said he couldn't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a "mushroom cloud."

But they picked some good cherries. The "irrefutable" evidence has had the living hell refuted out of it. The aluminum tubes, which seemed so damning at the time, are now nothing more than zany totems of the administration's aggressive campaign to sell the war. And Saddam's nuclear program has proved to be no more substantial than the president's attention span.

The Tribune then moves on to one of the subtler — and most important — criticisms of the Bush administration, one that the Ron Suskind book "Price of Loyalty" slam-dunked by exploring the short government career of former US Treasury Secretary and Unloved Truthteller Paul O'Neill.

But groupthink took hold among the neocons, while those with contrary points of view, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, were sidelined until after key decisions were made. It was almost as though someone who asked tough questions was seen as siding with the terrorists.

When Gen. Eric Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, said that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure a postwar Iraq, his argument was dismissed and the general summarily pushed aside.

But after Baghdad fell, we saw how insufficient troop numbers led to the looting of hospitals, businesses and schools — everything but the Oil Ministry, which our forces secured.

The administration's zeal to silence whistleblowers while rewarding craven toadies may be its worst broad attribute. If you want a clean, vigorous, healthy business with long-term prospects, encourage your smartest people to engage in real discussion, and reward even the most junior of employees who expose corruption or inefficiency. If you want a festering mess... the past four years of US governance are a fairly clear instruction manual.

The Tribune then faces directly up to the cost of war:

Still, despite deliberate steps to rebuild Iraq, we find ourselves today in an open-ended war that has taken the lives of 1,081 American servicemen and women, and wounded or maimed 7,862 more. Financially, the war has cost us $126 billion — money that could have been better spent securing the homeland — and is a major reason for the largest federal deficit in history.

No points for guessing which major public figure has never grappled with these hard statistics.

No, it's not Andre 3000.

No, it's... listen, it's Bush. At every possible opportunity to face up to the incredible cost of war, President Bush has minimized or dodged the numbers. He's skipped the funerals of dead servicemen and servicewomen. He's presided over a cloak of silence that pushes what the armed forces have sacrificed into the corner so it doesn't have to be thought about, or argued about, or publically mourned.

To do any of these things would put the administration at risk, politically, and so it's Just Not Done.

The Iraq war came about because of a profound failure of intelligence that went unchecked and unquestioned by the president, who shows no sign of having second doubts. He admits to making no mistakes except for a few presidential appointments — presumably disloyal people who dared to speak up.

Bush's re-election campaign continues to stoke fear. "You better have a president who faces these terrorists down before they hurt us again," he said in the first debate.

Cheney, who continues to maintain that Iraq was in league with al-Qaida despite evidence to the contrary, went so far as to say that electing Kerry would invite another terrorist strike.

Moving past Iraq, the Tribune then goes after one of Bush's most shocking betrayals of his conservative base: an inability to rein in spending.

But while the recession, 9/11 and profligate spending by Congress have grown the deficit, two-thirds can be traced back to the president's tax cuts, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

At one point, Congress tried to impose some fiscal discipline. Lawmakers said they would not pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit if the cost exceeded $400 billion over 10 years.

So what did the administration do? It fudged the numbers.

Thomas Scully, former head of the Medicare agency, threatened to fire chief actuary Richard Foster if he dared to tell lawmakers that the true cost stood between $500 billion and $600 billion.

To make matters worse, the president's law prohibits Medicare from negotiating the best prices from pharmaceutical companies.

In a healthy democracy, one might hope that crooks like Scully would be fined beyond belief and then jailed. Under Bush, Scully has taken to the stump as one of the president's health care surrogates. This is a little like having Rush Limbaugh deliver the keynote address at a convention of DEA agents.

All in all, in one of the longest and most thoughtful editorials written in any paper during any campaign, the Tribune sorrowfully lays waste to the Bush record from the most shocking perspective of all: That of an honest conservative voice not afraid to call 'em as it sees 'em. And the piece ends on a hell of a high note:

Voting is a matter of faith, since no one can predict what either candidate will do. Voting is a personal choice, one of the most personal things we do. We encourage you to look deep within yourself and choose the candidate you think most clearly represents your views.

Of one thing we are certain: America is the greatest country on earth and will survive, no matter the outcome on Nov. 2.

God bless the certainty of the Tampa Tribune. And God bless its staff for standing up and doing what journalists are paid to do: hold their noses, sift through conflicting and unpleasant scraps of evidence, and make sense of the mess.

E-mail James Norton at jim@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)