Apparently, the editors of the Columbus Dispatch fail to read the articles in their own newspaper, because any objective review of the events of the last four years would make an endorsement of George W. Bush unconscionable. Bush�s presidency has been particularly disastrous for Ohio, with record job losses and a faltering economy, but the Dispatch would have us vote for him anyway, saying they believe Bush would �stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead.�
So how then do the editors reconcile their �belief� in Bush with the mountain of facts that argue against him? By saying they are uncertain about what Kerry would do and hoping that Bush would act differently in a second term. These arguments are flimsy at best. If lack of certainty about a challenger were such an issue then no challenger would ever win the Dispatch�s endorsement because we always know more about the incumbent. Furthermore, hoping Bush will change is just wishful thinking. The editors state twice that Bush �refuses to acknowledge mistakes� but ask us to hope that he will somehow correct them. Exactly what kind of endorsement is that?
A newspaper�s endorsement should be, one would assume, an analysis of which candidate would better serve that newspaper�s readership. It is simply shameful for the Dispatch to ask its readers to re-elect a president that has done nothing but harm to the economy of Ohio and has faltered so badly in foreign affairs. It would have been better to say nothing at all than to make such a politically motivated choice. Thankfully, ordinary Ohioans have been following the news, not ignoring it, as the Dispatch editors seem to have done, and won�t be persuaded into making the wrong choice for Ohio.
Kelly