[size=+1]Canadian Newspaper Endorsements of Bush[/size]
<SMALL>Winnipeg Sun, Calgary Sun ^ </SMALL>
Winnipeg Sun Mon, November 1, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush better for U.S., us We've all heard the scaremongering from both sides: if U.S. President George W. Bush is re-elected, Democrats say, the world will get more dangerous, war will be constant and more innocents will die. Or, if Sen. John Kerry takes over, Republicans warn, policies of appeasement will rule, extremists will be emboldened and the terrorists will win.
Canadians, fresh from last spring's election campaign of demonization and misinformation, shouldn't get too smug about this bitter battle. But there's no doubt, if this country had a vote tomorrow, it would be overwhelmingly -- and, we think, wrongly -- for Kerry.
Many Canadians are appalled by the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and see Kerry's left-leaning, more cosmopolitan outlook as closer to our own. Yet a Kerry presidency would arguably be worse for Canada.
Kerry favours extending restrictions on our beef and softwood lumber and keeping more jobs in the U.S.. His view that Americans should have open access to Canada's cheaper drugs is a risky invitation to shortages and higher prices.
Kerry, like Bush, also supports missile defence (as do we), and would ask Canada to send troops to Iraq to help with reconstruction -- something PM Paul Martin has insisted won't happen.
Neither candidate, though, has signalled that Canada-U.S. relations are of any great importance to him -- which is, frankly, more a reflection on us than it is on them.
All of which leaves two key election issues that affect Canadians. The first is the economy, but the choice of president alone isn't likely to affect it, or us, much either way. The second is the global war on terrorism, which affects us all.
While we have serious reservations about both candidates, on this issue we believe the better choice -- for America, Canada and the world -- is clearly Bush.
Indeed, it's because of his post-9/11 transformation that Bush has earned four more years. And we say this with no illusions about his blunders regarding Iraq. Simply put, Bush understands the reality of the post-9/11 world. Kerry, despite his Vietnam war-hero record, says he has a "plan" for Iraq, but it is no clearer and certainly no better than Bush's. He has spoken wistfully about creating a more understanding world where terrorism is reduced to a "nuisance" -- a naive view not unlike that of some Canadians who seem to think we can avoid becoming a terror target by being nice, or by hiding behind the impotent UN, riddled as it is with appeasers and despots.
What they don't get -- and Bush does -- is that the terrorist enemy is not impressed by nice."Soft" power will not appease them. There is nothing "soft" about their aim to obliterate us -- not just our American friends, but us. Bush has understood this instinctively since the attacks of 9/11, and he will not quit or waver. The world will ultimately be safer because he has recognized this threat.
Calgary Sun November 1 Dubya deserves it When the American people go to the polls tomorrow we hope they give President George W. Bush a second term in the White House and as their nation's Commander-in-Chief.
Main reason for our endorsement of the 43rd President of the United States of America is he has shown his mettle in one of the most difficult -- and frightening -- periods of history any president has ever faced.
Bush had been in office barely eight months when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida launched its terrorists attacks on Sept 11, 2001, against the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and the aborted assault on the White House itself.
No one could ever have imagined the world would change so dramatically so quickly. Throughout these cataclysmic times Bush has never wavered in his determination to protect not only the U.S. from Islamic terrorism, but the entire world. The Taliban is now gone from Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power in Iraq. Libya, once a sponsor of state terrorism, has renounced arms of mass destruction. Other Middle East nations are rethinking their policies. Bush has firmly pointed out the fight against world terrorism will be neither short nor easy, but it will be won.
Democratic presidential contender John Kerry is an attractive and forceful on-stage personality, but he is largely a worrying quantity. This is his own fault. He flip-flops on issues almost by the day. Assessing his many votes in the Senate, one never knows where he quite stands. At times he seems to be almost a self-serving opportunist. That's unsettling.
On Canadian-American relations, Bush is obviously the best choice for Canada. The President is a dedicated believer in free trade. The Democratic contender has assured voters he is a protectionist and will turn back the tide of imported goods. Yet 83% of Canada's exports go to the U.S., and, directly or indirectly, 50% of all Canadian jobs depend on those exports. Having witnessed the economic turmoil bans on beef exports and penalties on softwood lumber exports have done to just two segments of our economy, our country would face serious economic devastation if Kerry actually followed through on his promises to protect U.S. industry on a widespread front. Kerry is a commodity Canada cannot afford. So we hope the American people choose wisely tomorrow, and if so they will choose George W.Bush.
<SMALL>Winnipeg Sun, Calgary Sun ^ </SMALL>
Winnipeg Sun Mon, November 1, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush better for U.S., us We've all heard the scaremongering from both sides: if U.S. President George W. Bush is re-elected, Democrats say, the world will get more dangerous, war will be constant and more innocents will die. Or, if Sen. John Kerry takes over, Republicans warn, policies of appeasement will rule, extremists will be emboldened and the terrorists will win.
Canadians, fresh from last spring's election campaign of demonization and misinformation, shouldn't get too smug about this bitter battle. But there's no doubt, if this country had a vote tomorrow, it would be overwhelmingly -- and, we think, wrongly -- for Kerry.
Many Canadians are appalled by the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and see Kerry's left-leaning, more cosmopolitan outlook as closer to our own. Yet a Kerry presidency would arguably be worse for Canada.
Kerry favours extending restrictions on our beef and softwood lumber and keeping more jobs in the U.S.. His view that Americans should have open access to Canada's cheaper drugs is a risky invitation to shortages and higher prices.
Kerry, like Bush, also supports missile defence (as do we), and would ask Canada to send troops to Iraq to help with reconstruction -- something PM Paul Martin has insisted won't happen.
Neither candidate, though, has signalled that Canada-U.S. relations are of any great importance to him -- which is, frankly, more a reflection on us than it is on them.
All of which leaves two key election issues that affect Canadians. The first is the economy, but the choice of president alone isn't likely to affect it, or us, much either way. The second is the global war on terrorism, which affects us all.
While we have serious reservations about both candidates, on this issue we believe the better choice -- for America, Canada and the world -- is clearly Bush.
Indeed, it's because of his post-9/11 transformation that Bush has earned four more years. And we say this with no illusions about his blunders regarding Iraq. Simply put, Bush understands the reality of the post-9/11 world. Kerry, despite his Vietnam war-hero record, says he has a "plan" for Iraq, but it is no clearer and certainly no better than Bush's. He has spoken wistfully about creating a more understanding world where terrorism is reduced to a "nuisance" -- a naive view not unlike that of some Canadians who seem to think we can avoid becoming a terror target by being nice, or by hiding behind the impotent UN, riddled as it is with appeasers and despots.
What they don't get -- and Bush does -- is that the terrorist enemy is not impressed by nice."Soft" power will not appease them. There is nothing "soft" about their aim to obliterate us -- not just our American friends, but us. Bush has understood this instinctively since the attacks of 9/11, and he will not quit or waver. The world will ultimately be safer because he has recognized this threat.
Calgary Sun November 1 Dubya deserves it When the American people go to the polls tomorrow we hope they give President George W. Bush a second term in the White House and as their nation's Commander-in-Chief.
Main reason for our endorsement of the 43rd President of the United States of America is he has shown his mettle in one of the most difficult -- and frightening -- periods of history any president has ever faced.
Bush had been in office barely eight months when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida launched its terrorists attacks on Sept 11, 2001, against the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and the aborted assault on the White House itself.
No one could ever have imagined the world would change so dramatically so quickly. Throughout these cataclysmic times Bush has never wavered in his determination to protect not only the U.S. from Islamic terrorism, but the entire world. The Taliban is now gone from Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power in Iraq. Libya, once a sponsor of state terrorism, has renounced arms of mass destruction. Other Middle East nations are rethinking their policies. Bush has firmly pointed out the fight against world terrorism will be neither short nor easy, but it will be won.
Democratic presidential contender John Kerry is an attractive and forceful on-stage personality, but he is largely a worrying quantity. This is his own fault. He flip-flops on issues almost by the day. Assessing his many votes in the Senate, one never knows where he quite stands. At times he seems to be almost a self-serving opportunist. That's unsettling.
On Canadian-American relations, Bush is obviously the best choice for Canada. The President is a dedicated believer in free trade. The Democratic contender has assured voters he is a protectionist and will turn back the tide of imported goods. Yet 83% of Canada's exports go to the U.S., and, directly or indirectly, 50% of all Canadian jobs depend on those exports. Having witnessed the economic turmoil bans on beef exports and penalties on softwood lumber exports have done to just two segments of our economy, our country would face serious economic devastation if Kerry actually followed through on his promises to protect U.S. industry on a widespread front. Kerry is a commodity Canada cannot afford. So we hope the American people choose wisely tomorrow, and if so they will choose George W.Bush.
