Busch's hometown paper endorses Carey ... and PAYS dearly

Read the paper's endorsement here:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

and then read the next week's editorial response here:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm

or follow along below:

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he=20
had promised that, as President, he would:
=95 Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset=20
fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefi=
ts.
=95 Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans=92 benefits and milita=
ry pay.
=95 Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices=
=20
by 50 percent.
=95 Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in=
=20
fact, by policy encourage their departure.
=95 Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without=20
competitive bids.
=95 Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
=95 Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the=20
history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that=20
will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took=20
office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on=20
the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the=20
things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to=20
normality that Kerry says our country needs.
Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his=20
initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating=20
state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic=20
freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous=20
mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.
President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system=20
as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents=20
related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic=20
tailspin.
The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the=20
government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system=20
must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you=20
are running a huge deficit? It=92s impossible, without raising taxes=20
sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social=20
Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same=20
time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the=20
national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.
Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to=20
the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take=20
millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and,=20
unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world=20
will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and=20
the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to=20
mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would=20
find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.
Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He=20
says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent=20
through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to=20
strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush=20
administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as=20
needed to fit ever-changing demographics.
Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush=92s answer is=20
radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have=20
never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social=20
Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans=20
rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow=20
Bush=92s lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well=20
after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes=20
instead of solutions.
He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and=20
private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put=20
economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He=20
merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.
Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of=20
Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the=20
Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with=20
what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich=20
Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained=20
on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported=20
that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President=92s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his=20
word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper=92s=20
publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC=20
interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support=20
of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these=20
weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued.=20
Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise=20
for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit=20
assistance from our allies.
Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.
Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to=20
terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like=20
arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that=20
day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been=20
officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it=20
happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for=20
our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at=20
all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially=20
if he is, as he likes to boast, a =93wartime president.=94 America is in=20
service 365 days a year. We don=92t need a part-time President who does=20
not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and=20
who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don=92t get do=
ne.
What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more=20
gruesome than a stain on a White House intern=92s dress. America=92s=20
reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with=20
brute force as our most persuasive voice.
Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and=20
Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are=20
asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a=20
dangerous thing and =93spin=94 will not bring back to life a dead soldier=
;=20
certainly not a thousand of them.
Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority=20
to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing=20
weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before=20
the inspectors finished their jobs.
Kerry also voted against President Bush=92s $87 billion for troop funding=
=20
because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton=20
and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from=20
the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.
Kerry=92s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and=20
correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his=20
plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their=20
rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq=92s=20
multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with=20
Iraq=92s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq=92s=20
borders and non-interference in Iraq=92s internal affairs.
The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues,=20
including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans=92=20
entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our=20
children learn through a thought-controlling =93test=94 from Washington=20
rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young=20
people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating=20
extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very=20
freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so=20
hard to preserve.
We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries,=20
due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds=20
previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to=20
larger concerns, such as Halliburton =97 companies with strong ties to oi=
l=20
and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at=20
the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and=20
to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to=20
reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the=20
Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans=92 programs.
Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of=20
the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney=92s Halliburton has been awarded=20
multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid=20
process =97 an enormous conflict of interest =97 plus the company has bee=
n=20
significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America,=20
reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry=92s voting record is enviable=
=20
and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush=20
administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on=20
economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for=20
Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our=20
present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we=20
already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American=20
people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in=20
America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as=20
a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a=20
district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence,=20
good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That=92s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his=
=20
hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to=20
take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

###############################################

Aftermath Of Last Week=92s Editorial Endorsement

The Iconoclast received considerable criticism this past week after its=20
editors endorsed John Kerry for President. Several subscriptions and=20
advertisements were canceled after the newspaper hit the stands Tuesday=20
morning.
The editorial, co-authored by the newspaper=92s publisher, W. Leon Smith,=
=20
and writers Don Fisher and Nathan Diebenow, expressed the opinion that=20
Kerry would take the country in a better direction. There have been both=20
positive and negative comments.
We expected that perhaps a few readers might cancel subscriptions, and=20
maybe even ads, but have been amazed at a few of the more intense=20
communications, some of which bordered on outright personal attacks and=20
uncalled-for harassment.
We have been told by several avid Bush supporters that the days when=20
newspapers publish editorials without personal repercussions are over.=20
As publishers, we have printed editorials for decades, and have endorsed=20
candidates, both Republican and Democrat. When Bush was endorsed four=20
years ago, the Gore supporters did not respond with threats, nor did=20
Democrats when we endorsed Reagan twice. Republicans did not threaten us=20
personally or our business when we endorsed Carter and Clinton for their=20
first terms.
In the past, when individuals disagreed with an editorial, they would=20
write a letter to the editor politely expressing a different point of=20
view in contrast to the views of the publishers, which we have usually=20
published. Occasionally someone would cancel a subscription or an ad,=20
but this was rare.
The goal of the editorial page has been to provide an arena for the=20
expression of a variety of thoughtful opinions, some by the publishers,=20
some by columnists, and some by our readers.
The new mode of operation, I am told, is that when a newspaper prints an=20
editorial of which some sectors might disagree, the focus is now upon=20
how to run the newspaper out of business. Out the window are the=20
contributions the newspaper has made to the community in the past and=20
the newspaper=92s extensive investment in the community.
We do understand peoples=92 rights to pull subscriptions and ads, and to=20
express a differing opinion, but we have some trouble understanding=20
threats and payback since in politics there are often a variety of=20
options. For the publishers to herald one of the options should be no=20
cause for persecution.
When you think about it, editorials are often displayed in people=92s=20
yards with campaign signs. These are endorsements by residents. Is it=20
proper to persecute them for stating their opinions in this manner if=20
you disagree with their choices? Should they be harassed and threatened?=20
We don=92t think so.
Unfortunately, for the Iconoclast and its publishers there have been=20
threats =97 big ones including physical harm.
Too, some individuals are threatening innocent commercial concerns,=20
claiming that if they advertise in The Iconoclast, they will be run out=20
of business. We consider this improper in a democracy.
Several young members of our staff covering Tonkawa Traditions this past=20
weekend were angrily harassed and threatened that they must leave, which=20
cut short their ability to fully do their jobs and instilled in them=20
considerable fear for their safety. These reporters had nothing to do=20
with that editorial. They were part-time college students working to pay=20
their way through school and better themselves.
Although several members of the community are upset at the newspaper,=20
there are still those who want us to continue with local coverage as we=20
have in the past. We do have concern for the safety of our staff,=20
however, and find it troubling when they are bullied and cannot do their=20
jobs.
 From the period of Tuesday through noon Saturday of this past week, The=20
Iconoclast has received over 700 letters to the editor related to the=20
editorial which received more attention than we had expected. Some of=20
the dispatches are very critical and some are very supportive of the=20
editorial. And a few do offer a thoughtful, differing point of view on=20
the issues, which we do appreciate.
Since The Iconoclast has a very small staff, it has been impossible for=20
us to verify each and every signature as is our normal procedure prior=20
to publication, but to provide the letters for the public to read, we=20
are posting them on our website with the names of the authors listed as=20
initials.
We have been told that some letters e-mailed to us did not get through,=20
perhaps since our internet system became overloaded at times this past=20
week. The letters posted are the ones we received that pertained to the=20
editorial (as opposed to being simply questions or other correspondence).
A few have been edited slightly due to offensive language or the=20
writer=92s identity being revealed in the body of the letter, but we have=
=20
attempted to publish them, with few exceptions, just as we received them.
To publish them in the print edition would require substantially too=20
much space (about 30 pages, in our estimation). So go to=20
www.iconoclast-texas.com if you want to peruse the letters.
Nearly a hundred individuals (including some Crawford residents) have=20
purchased new subscriptions to help replace those lost, and a few have=20
expressed a desire to become new advertising clients. For this, we are=20
thankful.
The publisher has read every e-mail and letter received and sends=20
appreciation to each and every letter-writer for expressing an opinion,=20
pro or con, as this shows a passion for their positions and a keen=20
interest in the upcoming election.
Whether readers agree or disagree with the recommendation rendered by=20
the publishers, we do encourage them to vote in the upcoming election.=20
We consider it more than a privilege, but a duty.
=97 W. Leon Smith
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://your.ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/