|
|
|
| Mon, Dec. 07 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
For president
Who should the next president be?
Date published: 10/26/2008
THE FREE-LANCE STAR makes no endorsement in the contest for the presidency. Both major-party candidates, we believe, have significant strengths, and both weaknesses. Our disinclination to endorse derives from our inability, weighing all factors, to confidently and consensually discern a clearly superior choice. It in no way reflects the idea that this election is unimportant. On the contrary. The times and the world are troubled, requiring the very best national leadership. Between now and Election Day, it behooves all of us to set aside loyalties of the pettier sort, mere emotion, and habitual ways of thinking to honestly contemplate, like citizens newly minted, issues and men--and finally to cast our votes in a manner that, besides serving perceived interests of the moment, honors America's heritage and her promise. Among the questions we urge you to ask yourselves, as we shall, are these: America has tended to thrive when taxes are low and the hand of government light. Yet the creative destruction of markets can be cruel and the lords of capital reckless, periling the commonweal. Which candidate is apt to both appreciate the economic freedom that boosts living standards and protect workers, investors, and pensioners from the ruinous avarice of boardrooms where decency's chair sits empty? The national debt approaches $10 trillion, excluding the $700 billion newly committed to saving Wall Street. Which candidate is more likely to develop a cogent plan--neither now has one--to meet federal obligations to the elderly (via Social Security and Medicare) and poor (via Medicaid), and to all of us via national defense, while beginning to shrink that cancerous debt? Which candidate is less promiscuous in his appetite for new federal programs? Which is more credible in his promises to streamline government--and to see that Washington's truly legitimate functions are competently performed? Which candidate more greatly respects federalism--the doctrine that states matter and that most public problems should be solved at the state or local level? In foreign affairs, which candidate will withdraw U.S. troops more responsibly from Iraq? Which will conduct the war in Afghanistan more effectively? With which will you feel safer when sabers, perhaps bearing nuclear symbols, rattle in Iran, North Korea, China, or even Russia? Which candidate is better suited to repair America's tattered alliances and restore America's standing in the eyes of the world's leaders and peoples? Which can better distinguish American exceptionalism from American arrogance?
Date published: 10/26/2008
Time for Resignations
(posted by
dadster3
, Oct. 27, 2008 12:39 pm)
I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to reading the convoluted logic that would let the FLS endorse McCain-Palin. In their schizophrenic endorsement of Allen over Webb, the real criteria was, in the end, that at least Allen wasn't a democrat.
This community has been poorly served for the 8+ years since the FLS made its sharp right-hand turn, and this act of editorial cowardice is the worst yet. Akers and the rest of the head-in-the-sand conservatives should resign. I call on them to do so.
The Star Just Endorsed Obama - But The Free Lance Is Gone
(posted by
rrwwsmith
, Oct. 27, 2008 8:19 am)
Given the recent history of this newspaper, this
non-endorsement is an endorsement of the
Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Still 'free
lance' in the newspaper's name refers to a certain
"independence" of mind. Yet today's paper cannot
'seize' the moment and courageously pick the
better man for the office of President. The leaders
are timid. Their reason tells them "Obama". But
their history under Rowe/Akers tells them McCain.
Had they picked McCain, they would have had to
give their reasons. Impossible.
So, the FLS endorsement is for A president?
(posted by
Einstein
, Oct. 26, 2008 4:56 pm)
"After careful consideration and deliberation we here at the Freelance Star firmly believe the United States of America should, most definitely, have a president."
larryg has it right.
(posted by
joekavalier
, Oct. 26, 2008 3:13 pm)
I'm certain that this non-endorsement is the product of a
deeply divided editorial board. We can all guess where
Paul Akers' sympathies lie — but longtime readers will
remember the days when Ed Jones was in charge of the
editorial page, and the FL-S was much more liberal. The
same divisions are present among the publishers. That
said, it might have been more honest to write two editorials
and say, "Some of us support Obama, and here's why; and
some of us support McCain, and here's why."
Both candidates are relieved.
(posted by
kspecial
, Oct. 26, 2008 12:30 pm)
Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my subscription to
the FLS months ago. Why would anyone actually pay for your
paper when it's free (for laughs) here online?
|
 |
|||
|
|||
