Miscellaneous
Checks and Balances tries to explain (reg req) Mayor Kelly's loss to us, but oversimplifies things in the process. (emphasis added)
Throughout the election Kelly maintained his party affiliation to Democrats in spite of a cozy relationship with President George W. Bush (R), U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Governor Tim Pawlenty (R). The endorsement of Bush by Kelly last summer is still baffling to most political observers. What Kelly saw as an act of patriotism and support for a unified nation during a war effort was seen as support for a President who misrepresented the cause to go to war. In effect, Kelly became a local scapegoat for Bush.
Source: Checks and Balances - What the Electoral Results Mean 11/14/05
To boil the endorsement of President Bush down to supporting a war built on lies is a horrible misrepresentation of Kelly's position. The truth is Kelly supported the president because given his two options he believed the president was the better of the two options to lead our country through the next four years. Some excerpts from his endorsement speech follow, if you read them it is clear to me that Kelly endorsed Bush out of principle and regardless of politics.
The war in Iraq was won in blinding speed — the peace has been a much greater challenge....The reality is: almost 150,000 of our troops are in Iraq today. We'll get them home a lot sooner and with a better outcome if we don't try to bring in a whole new leadership team to run the show. We must stay the course.
I agree with the President that we must see this thru and not turn tail and run, and give our enemies the message that we lack resolve.
And the war on terror is a huge, ongoing struggle. If we changed presidents at this juncture, there is just no question that it would confuse our friends and encourage our enemies. In a war, you just can't afford to do that. Continuity and resolve is critical.
...The common good will be better served on the path we're on than with an abrupt change of direction, especially one paved in part with political hatred.
...I am more determined than ever to send the message to my sons — and to the sons and daughters of other Moms and Dads in St. Paul, Minnesota and America — that we can, we should and we must stop — now — this poison partisanship that threatens to destroy the national will to come together to win the War on Terror here, at home, and across the world.
Some will next point out that he was rather cozy with certain elements of the Bush administration and national Republican party over the past 14 months, all this illustrates to me is that Kelly probably realized he was in trouble for '05 (see highlight section below). In hindsight, I respect his act of principle, but if I was him I would have issued the statement endorsing the president and left it at that. Damage control might have been easier if he were to not introduce the president at the Xcel Center and stumped for him, instead just put his name behind it and then start mending fences after the election.
...Americans are looking for strong, steady, and principled leadership. They crave politicians who stand for something, rather than rally us against someone. The American people I know — the ones I represent in St. Paul — care about leaders who stand steady in difficult times, who do not waver nor bend to the wind. They want strong, determined leadership — and, I believe George Bush provides us that leadership today at this point in our history.
I’ve been a Democrat all my life and after this announcement I’ll continue to be a Democrat. But I believe I have a higher loyalty to what's best for my country and our city than to party.
So this November, George W. Bush has my endorsement for President of the United States.
...Whatever the cost of this decision is to me, the expense of remaining quiet in this election year is of far greater consequence to me.
Kelly proved he was a man who lived by his convictions regardless of the personal cost to himself. All I can say to my Democrat and left leaning friends is you may not like it, but if you do not respect him, then I have no respect for you.
Finally, this analysis by C&B proves one of two things, the thought and analysis is weak or else they are just eager to push the current Democratic Party mantra about how the war in Iraq is built on a lie. So which is it? Weak analysis or is the statement below not quite accurate.
The methodology employed in our unique style of political reporting readily develops a strong relationship with our readership. They know where to find the most interesting political information and that is in Checks & Balances. We are willing to present issues with all of their political points intact giving the reader the ability to decide the correct side of an issue. We rely on the intelligence of our audience.
My vote is weak analysis, afterall this is the same site the
claimed (or
here) I was
MDE based on
Blogshares data.
Click Here To Vote!