Lowell Sun endorses Bush for President
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/03/04 - 20:01 Post subject: Lowell Sun endorses Bush for President
One would imagine that this newspaper has a much higher circulation then the Crawford, TX rag. I'm sure we will hear about this endorsement in the main stream media as much as we heard about the Lone Star Iconoclast. 
http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105~4746~2442984,00.html
| Quote: | Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
It's about national security.
That's the key issue on the minds of Americans planning to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election.
They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism.
Americans aren't fools. They know that without safe cities and towns, America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness.
Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail to guarantee a future free of turmoil.
Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose: To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe.
They'd like to be plotting in our streets right now. They'd like to be sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland and everywhere else. They'd like to be wearing us down and bringing our nation to its knees.
Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.
That leader is President Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HighHeat
Big Daddy
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 6682
Location: Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/03/04 - 20:47 Post subject:
FWIW, The Sun is known around here as a conservative paper.
Not a surprise really, but your point is taken.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/03/04 - 21:16 Post subject:
I fail to see his point. Next thing you know Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh are going to surprise the nation when they endorse Dubya for President. I wonder whom the Southern Baptist Convention and other right ring Christian groups are going to endorse. Let me do some serious thinking here. The Archdiocese of Atlanta just announced a few weeks ago that faithful catholics cannot vote for a candidate who supports a womans right to choice. Did you say the Archdiocese of Atlanta is supporting Dubya? I'm really surprised. I would never have guessed. After all, with the separation of Church and State so firmly entrenched in American ideals.
I saw a lot of Tech fans wearing "Jackets for Bush" stickers yesterday. I guess that means everyone else at the stadium were Kerry supporters. 
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 05:32 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I fail to see his point |
Last week you made a big deal about the hometown paper of GWB endorsing Kerry for President. When the circulation was only about 2000.
| GRR wrote: | | The Archdiocese of Atlanta just announced a few weeks ago that faithful catholics cannot vote for a candidate who supports a womans right to choice. Did you say the Archdiocese of Atlanta is supporting Dubya? I'm really surprised. I would never have guessed. After all, with the separation of Church and State so firmly entrenched in American ideals |
No where in ArchBishop Donoghue's Statement on Conscientious Voting does he endorse one candidate or the other. In fact he says it right here | The ArchBishop wrote: | | as a Bishop of the Church, I cannot tell you for whom to vote. It would be to misuse authority given me to exercise with humility and prudence. But I can teach you, on behalf of the Church, the manner in which you must decide for whom to vote |
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 06:37 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I fail to see his point |
Last week you made a big deal about the hometown paper of GWB endorsing Kerry for President. When the circulation was only about 2000.
| GRR wrote: | | The Archdiocese of Atlanta just announced a few weeks ago that faithful catholics cannot vote for a candidate who supports a womans right to choice. Did you say the Archdiocese of Atlanta is supporting Dubya? I'm really surprised. I would never have guessed. After all, with the separation of Church and State so firmly entrenched in American ideals |
No where in ArchBishop Donoghue's Statement on Conscientious Voting does he endorse one candidate or the other. In fact he says it right here | The ArchBishop wrote: | | as a Bishop of the Church, I cannot tell you for whom to vote. It would be to misuse authority given me to exercise with humility and prudence. But I can teach you, on behalf of the Church, the manner in which you must decide for whom to vote |
|
When Kerry's hometown newspaper endorses Dubya I'll consider his point taken. He chose any newspaper in Massachussetts that happens to be conservative. That is not a point taken.
The ArchBishop of Atlanta has been very emphatic that Catholics wishing to receive the sacraments of the Church cannot and must not vote for candidates supporting a woman's right to choose, whether or not that candidate is Catholic. The statement made above was to counter the growing criticism of Catholics in the archdiocese opposing his policies. And even within that statement he says whom "...you must decide for whom to vote." That's pretty close to violating separation of church and state, and in my book it does so.
The ArchBishop is fully teaching whom his parishoners must vote for on behalf of the Church, not on behalf of whom they believe will make the best President. How does that not violate separation of Church and State?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:44 Post subject:
Sonny, this seems very much like trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:45 Post subject:
As a practicing (progressive) Catholic, I see this as just one more broadside in the on-going struggle for control of the church that was let loose by John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council.
The whole struggle from being a top-down hierarchy-driven faith and one with broader, member-control (as John said, "the people are the church, not the clergy" or something like that) is especially heating up based on two things: The aging of the sitting Pope is causing alot of jockeying for power, and 2. the resurgence of demands for lay power and oversight following revelations about the sexual abuse scandal (in the US but also worldwide).
The difficult choice for Catholics is that their faith doctrines are in two-camps politically, Pro-Life in the GOP, and anti-death penalty, pro-social assistance in the Dems. It would seem that in the last year a number of Bishops have issued these kind of decrees you and Cappy described with a lot more frequency than I can recall ever in the past. To that extent I really believe that elements in the church are choosing to jettison the liberal Catholics in favor of a more conservative base, one which dovetails more or less with the GOP and more fundamentalist Protestant sects. Not surprisingly, those more conservative Catholics, clergy and lay, both favor a more hierarchical church mode.
Not that they are in the majority in the US at least, but lines are being drawn and things are coming to a head. Cardinal Ratzinger is a heartbeat away from the Papacy and arguably the most powerful person in the Vatican right now, though I think he's too political to ever be nominated Pope by the next College of Cardinals. One of his proteges, however?
I get the feeling the church will look very different in 20-30 years than it does now or did in my youth. I just don't know which way that will break.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:46 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
I get the feeling the church will look very different in 20-30 years than it does now or did in my youth. I just don't know which way that will break. |
I agree Rex. I don't think we will see any changes under this current Pope.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:49 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sonny, this seems very much like trolling. |
Hmmm.... Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I'm still waiting for the AP wire story about this endorsement like they did when the Crawford paper endorsed Kerry. Just another brick in the wall for our left-leaning main stream media (MSM).
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:51 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | our left-leaning main stream media (MSM). |
Now I'm LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:54 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | The ArchBishop of Atlanta is fully teaching whom his parishoners must vote for on behalf of the Church, not on behalf of whom they believe will make the best President. How does that not violate separation of Church and State? |
I'm not say it's right or wrong, but Jesse Jackson scaring people at churches about voting for the evil Republicans isn't the same thing?
I think churches should lose their tax exempt status across the board.
P.S. What does religion have to do with the topic that I raised?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 09:54 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sonny, this seems very much like trolling. |
Define troll
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 10:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 10:03 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Just another brick in the wall for our left-leaning main stream media (MSM). |
Do you mean like this?
Published on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by the Miami Herald
Was Times Coverage Tainted?
by Max Castro
What was the role of the American media in ''manufacturing consent'' among the American people for the war in Iraq and its aftermath?
Jingoistic journalism has helped bring about more than one war. The most notorious example is the Spanish-American war of 1898, in which the yellow journalism of the time played a key role by whipping up anti-Spanish sentiment among the populace.
Is there a parallel in Iraq? Did the media cross the line beyond reporting into assisting or cheerleading the war effort? Did even the ''nation's newspaper of record,'' The New York Times, help Washington's hawks make a case for the war by lending excessive credibility to the official story regarding weapons of mass destruction? And, if that bastion of alleged liberal media bias succumbed to the enormous power of government manipulation, what can be said for lesser media?
The question arose anew last week with the case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who specializes in the Middle East, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As reported in The Washington Post by Howard Kurtz and by other media, Miller's relations not only with the military unit to which she was assigned but also with civilian hawks in the Pentagon and in hard-line Washington think tanks gives a new definition to the term ``embedded.''
In the run-up to the war, Miller helpfully passed along information leaked anonymously by U.S. government officials and Iraqi exiles implying the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi government's intention to use them. On Nov. 12, in a Times front-page story, Miller wrote that ``senior Bush administration officials report Iraq has ordered large quantities of a drug used to counter effects of nerve gas . . . and suggest Iraq may be taking steps to protect its own soldiers in the event it uses nerve agents.''
The nerve gas never materialized. Suffering enormous carnage, defeated on every front, the Iraqi army somehow never got around to using weapons of mass destruction. Or, more likely, they didn't have them, and that's why they haven't been found two months after victory was declared. No matter: The information battle to justify the war was won with a helping hand from the ''liberal'' media.
After the war, The Washington Post published an internal May 1 Times e-mail in which Miller stated that exiled Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi ''provided most of the front-page exclusives on WMD to our paper.'' That's amazing, given that Chalabi, a darling of Washington hard-liners, had a vested interest in selling the idea of a dire Iraqi threat as a way of riding into power on the backs of American soldiers. Chalabi's credibility is suspect as well because of his exaggerated claims about his own popularity in Iraq.
Judging by the reliability of her sources, it's not surprising that Miller's sensational post-war stories (U.S. analysts link Iraq labs to germ arms; U.S. experts find radioactive material in Iraq; U.S.-led forces occupy Baghdad complex filled with chemical agents) later turned out to be groundless. (Is it any wonder one-third of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction have been found?)
No weapons, no problem, a convenient explanation for their nonexistence can be found, and Miller once again is the ideal conduit. On April 21, Miller reported in The Times that an Iraqi scientist had asserted Iraq only destroyed its weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war. But Miller's story was based on what officials told her the Iraqi scientist said; she was not allowed to interview him. Meanwhile, Newsweek was reporting that, despite tough interrogation, numerous Iraqi scientists were all saying the weapons had been destroyed many years earlier.
In the case of Jayson Blair, the reporter who faked dozens of stories, Times editors waited far too long. Now they are defending Judith Miller, whose reporting on Iraq seems to be ''all the news that fits the official story.'' Have they learned nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/04 - 10:04 Post subject:
When did you dye your hair pink, and does Rex know yet
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
