The Chicago Tribune explains its endorsement - sort of

Don Wycliff, public editor at the Chicago Tribune, broke his moratorium on answering the 2,400 messages sent to him and his staff at the Chicago Tribune after the paper endorsed President Bush for another term.

What he did was explain the process, who is involved and what criteria they use. With regards to the criteria, much of the decision rests on how much the candidate fits in with the Tribune's manifesto. Wycliff quoted part of it: "The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression."

Given these criteria, I still can't figure out how they would endorse Bush.

Maximum individual responsibility? Sure, American's have way more responsibility now -- responsibility to pay for their own health care, even though they can't afford it, responsibility to fend for their own futures after corporate hacks raided their retirement accounts, etc.

Isn't it Bush who couldn't name any mistakes that he could take responsibility for? Isn't it Cheney who headed a company that dodged US law by conducting business from a London-based firm to deal with Iran? Isn't it this administration who continues to pass the buck to the Clinton administration for the downturn in the economy?

Minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise? You have got to be kidding me. After 9/11, they passed legislation that was the most sweeping reform on civil liberties since giving women and African-American's the right to vote. Personal liberty is a farce under President Bush. They hide behind the veil of "necessary security measures" to justify the restriction of the civil liberties of every single American.

The Republicans can no longer call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility. Sure, they'll cut your taxes, but then they'll spend money they don't have and then cut those social services that so many American's rely upon. All of this to promote the idea of the free market. But, given the way this administration has had back door dealings with the energy industry, the defence industry and the pharmaceutical industry, I can't see much free market activity any more. Industry loves to pontificate on the virtues of the free market... except when they want billions and billions in government hand outs.

The actual text of the Tribune's endorsement doesn't really speak to any of this though. It is almost all about the war on terrorism. Well, we all know how I feel about that. Bush's record has not been exemplary: he is losing ground in Afghanistan, and losing face after sham elections there last week; Iraq is getting more and more out of hand and is far more dangerous to the surrounding world than it was before the war; there have been major terrorist attacks in Russia, Turkey and Spain, all coming during this President's war on terror.

Will John Kerry do any better? I can't see how he would do any worse.